User talk:Minderbinder~enwiki

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

re. 3RR on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Sorry, but I put up the U.S. cover, then it was gone, so i put it back up..then i kept doing that. The U.S. cover is so much better, though

LOST

Give me some time to read through the discussions.--Isotope23 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that Russell29 (talk · contribs) has a pretty good middle ground with this edit. Thoughts?--Isotope23 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that edit as well. The sticky bit seems to be the infoboxes and tables where there isn't room/format to do a "sort of featured/flasbacked" compromise. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to address it there. IMO at least, it is a judgment call whether or not these were "Boone" or "Boone/Shannon" episodes, sans any sort of "official" word from ABC, etc. It's not clear cut. The only clear cut dual flashback was Rose/Bernard.--Isotope23 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is a judgement call, isn't the solution just to go with consensus of editors? Looking at the discussion, do you feel there's consensus? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 27 February 2007

I'd say go with WP:CONSENSUS. I reverted the episode change already as well as asked the editor to stop calling edits "minor" when they are not.--Isotope23 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming he keeps reverting this (he has been since November), is there anything that can be done to try to get him to stop, or is this just something that will get reverted indefinitely? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think marking them as "Boone" flashbacks featuring "Shannon" is the best solution. If the reverts continue without comment or an attempt to discuss on the talkpage, let me know. When you have one editor ignoring consensus it can start to wander into WP:TE territory. If I could offer any advice, I'd try an RfC or RfM to see if a WP:CONSENSUS can go on record. Like I said on the talkpage, what I don't want to see is a slow moving edit war where depending on what time of day someone looks at the article will determine which version they see. I've already been involved in that sort of thing elsewhere.--Isotope23 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the articles for the time being, pending a discussion.--Isotope23 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will handle it Isotope23 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you don't have a word in this. you have as much consensus as me so leave me alone and find a solution

You and Dreadlocke

Lighten up dude. I'm trying to get him to work with you. In no way is that a personal attack. – Lantoka (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think you misread my comment. I didn't say that you're unilaterally disrupting consensus, I said you think Dreadlock is. – Lantoka (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't get angry with me

• I know you don't like me, but please don't post unnecessary comments like this on my talk page. It does nothing to contribute to the discussion. -- SilvaStorm

Blog Link

The WP policy is that blogs may be linked if they are written by a recognized authority. The 'official' status of my blog happened about a week ago, and there are plans for news of this to appear on the web but it may be another week or two before it happens. I won't be linking to my blog again, but if someone else were to be so inspired, they could certainly make the case that it should remain. Keep in mind that Public Parapsychology is not a personal blog, it was created to relay news in the field and be a resource to the general public.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zealous Overuse of NPA Template and Continued Accusations of Personal Attacks

Dude, what the hell is your problem? This and this are not personal attacks, yet at the first sign of trouble you rush to the NPA template. Do you know how rude it is to keep accusing your fellow editors of personal attacks like this? I really suggest you re-read WP:NPA, since these two latest examples clearly don't qualify.

As you say, "comment on content, not contributors". Well, behavior is content... unless you'd like to argue it's a contributor. Behavior can and is discussed: by admins, by mediators, by ArbCom, by fellow users, even by posting that NPA template you keep leaving on people's talk pages. – Lantoka (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. My "zealous" action was simply to ask the two editors to cease their negative comments about other editors. We'll see if that happens - hopefully further action won't be required. And for the record "Dude, what the hell is your problem?" probably isn't the most civil comment either. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt posting that template on established user's talk pages will do anything but exacerbate the situation. It's considered highly rude. I've seen admins remove the template when it's posted to their talk pages, for example. And it's just insulting when you use the template and what they've posted isn't even a personal attack. Seriously, read WP:NPA. And furthermore, I described your action as zealous because you have a history of (in my interpretation of the policy) incorrectly accusing people of personal attacks.

Trust me, I'm not the only one that's gonna be pissed over this. I'm just a spectator and it's making my blood boil. How do you think MartinPhi and Dreadlocke are gonna react when they see that? You would have been better off either ignoring the comments, or if that's not acceptable then responding directly on the talk page as you did to MartinPhi. – Lantoka (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to ignore the an uncivil comment, but they continue to do so, even after the situation has moved on and there's no reason to discuss earlier edits. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben Linus

The page didn't even have a discussion to decide whether it should be moved to the shorter title in the first place, so there is nothing wrong with moving it back. -- SilvaStorm

Answers to Comment on Talk:John Edward

The current version of the lead came from discussion on the talk page, not mediation (and I never did see the second mediation, where is it?). And it certainly can be modified further. Editors just need to know that there have been long discussions about it, and that edits to the intro will be heavily scrutinized and probably edited or reverted if people don't agree - a change just needs editors to agree on it. In other words, it's like many other articles here on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said. I included references to mediation to emphasize what a hotly debated topic that is. Hopefully it'll make somebody overly rash think twice before totally rewording our lead into something completely POV. And also, I didn't say that it can't be modified further, I just said it should be discussed on the talk page first. As for what mediation, well, Stevertigo kind of got pushed out in the middle and opted to stay out of things, but that doesn't mean that it didn't go through mediation. In fact the case is technically still open... I just posted about that though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know about the one mediation, where's the other one? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, you'd probably have to dig through the talk page archives. I know there's two because people kept bringing it up during this one though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LOST Articles

I'd strongly suggest that when Vozas (talk · contribs) returns from his latest block you initiate an article WP:RFC and try to get some outside input from editors who are not normally contributors here to form a consensus. Out of courtesy I'd wait until he returns to editing so he has a chance to argue his side if he chooses to do so.--Isotope23 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ITC

Please read the last paragraph on page 5 of "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon" by Imants Baruss.

"For example, during the time of his burial service, at 1:22 p.m. on October 21, 1987, Friedrich Jürgenson’s image purportedly appeared on the blank screen of the television set deliberately tuned to a vacant channel in the home of Claude Thorlin, with whom Jürgenson had previously worked on EVP"

This directly supports the statement made.

perfectblue 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost template

I can tell you basically follow every edit I do on Wikipedia, so please answer me this: If you spent ages recreating a template from scratch to fit Wikipedia, do you think you'd like other users to come along and nom it for deletion for useless reasons, such as claiming its broken (when it's not) or saying it is copied from Lostpedia. Sure I used the Lostpedia template as a guide, but I had to change things to make it fit in here. And what makes it worse is that the guy who nominated it - who doesn't even have an account - made it temporarily mucked up in the first place. It is a perfectly working and handy template that should be allowed to stay, and is made easier by the fact that it is "ep" and not "Lostep" which takes longer to write. I would've thought you'd agree with me, but I see I cannot win, so it is most likely going to be deleted. Thanks a lot. -- SilvaStorm

I didn't nominate it, and I didn't claim it's broken. If you're going to introduce a major change that could potentially affect dozens of pages, I'd suggest discussing it first instead of "EPISODE TITLE TEMPLATES MUST STAY!" --Milo H Minderbinder 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on an article for me?

You've been pretty helpful in the past, so could you help me out? Just a simple thing...

An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

IP edits

Some of the edits and comments are mine, but some are not. I don't have the time to pick through them right now. A general glance through the edits and comments do not seem to indicate anything particularly problematic about the IP comments even when they are not mine. So I will take ownership for all the edits even though they aren't mine just to make things easier. --ScienceApologist 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

Michael, I just wanted to let you know I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. Sorry I didn't get it in quick enough to help your 3RR situation. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You might want to file a CheckUser request too. But I am still confused as to why User:Stifle thought I had violated 3RR. Michaelbusch 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in; I've been following the EVP talk page from time to time, ever since I noticed a certain MsHyde there. The likelihood that Myriam Tobias is a sockpuppet of Martinphi is very high, based on, among other things, the timing of their edits (often edit in the same general time frame but don't overlap at all). If you have the diffs to indicate that the account was used to violate WP:3RR, which it appears you do, I'd second the suggestion that you go right to a checkuser request. MastCell 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I've filed the request. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to double-check the diffs you've cited at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi; a few don't match the date/time stamp you've listed. Might be worth just cut-and-pasting the relevant 4 diffs to WP:RFCU to make it easier on the checkuser. OK, I'll stop bugging you now. MastCell 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bugging at all, thanks for catching those. I've added diffs to RFCU and fixed those in the sockpuppet case. I'll double check them again, but if you find any more mistakes on either page please let me know. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved

The same verbiage appears on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header, and WP:BAN. >Radiant< 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoskepticism

I have taken it to CfD. — BillC ^talk 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. --Minderbinder 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Purported" Psychics

Are you the one responsible for the change to "Purported psychics" and "Purported spiritual mediums"? If so, would you please tell me the steps to request that it be changed back? The word "Purported" is not neutral, in my opinion. I should have been allowed to participate in the original discussion, but no one told me about it.--Caleb Murdock 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a discussion about changing a category name if almost no one knows about the discussion?--Caleb Murdock 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP Arb

My initial impression is that a mediator who will have to bring in 3rd parties to help him interpret physical science concepts is not desirable in this particular case. --- LuckyLouie 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...

Um, get out of my talk page and mind your own business. I can do that if I like because it is way too long, so leave it alone. -- SilvaStorm

Checkuser

Wow, you're becoming a regular at WP:RFCU! 2 for 2, not bad. It's a sad statement on the state of affairs at EVP, though - I thought maybe after MsHyde/Cindery's unceremonious exit, things might improve. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Can I help at EVP? (So you know ahead of time, I think the whole notion's thoroughly debunked codswallop) Cheers. Gwen Gale 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

TAPS

I don't see how you can take that stuff out: while you can read about the reactions of all those people in the forums it should be quite clear that all of the complaints of the fans were based on information from specific TAPS para-radio shows. How can you say that a show is not a valid or encyclopedic source? --Ira-welkin 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Crop circle

We were both attempting the same thing on this article and our edits clashed, with the result that I probably rolled back an edit you intended to make. You might want to check the article again. — BillC ^talk 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Thanks for letting me know. --Minderbinder 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eavesdropping at the Village Pump

One real example is Electronic voice phenomenon, where they have insisted that the "scientific consensus" should only include EVP experts, and thus should be presented as the mainstream view (including listing fringe theories first and in more detail). They have insisted on including details of some experiments that were self published or released via press conference because they are "historical". They have insisted on presenting details of an experiment as fact even when it hasn't been reproduced or had third party verification of methods or equipment. They have insisted on listing credentials that are either unsourced or sourced to questionable fringe publications. They have insisted on removing terms like "alleged", "purported", "said to be" etc in favor of phrasing that flat out says that unproven concepts actually exist. It has been argued that an article on a given topic should have all info that we can find, regardless of reliability because "that's what the reader wants" or "it's interesting".

Wow. I couldn't have described it better. --- LuckyLouie 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

List of The Wire episodes

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

John Edward

Hi

This topic is getting really fucking boring, and the cabal of Dreadlocke and Martinphi are over there revert warring just now, I have spent 3 reverts over there but they are still at it....sad eh? Belbo Casaubon 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While the topic is getting boring, that's no reason to make personal attacks. What's up with that comment you left? --Minderbinder 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm McNab

I noticed your comment on the Trumpet article questioning whether Malcolm McNab is "truly among the great modern trumpet players" and I thought I'd comment. It's a fair question since McNab has labored for most of his professional career in relative obscurity, showing flashes of brilliance only through the haze of studio orchestral soundtracks. If this was as far as he went I would not have added his name to the article. However, all that changed last November upon the release of his Exquisite album. I have studied trumpet for many years and I have never (repeat) never heard better classical trumpet playing. Most of the artists mentioned in the article are of the jazz genre. Although I have listened to my share of Bill Chase, Maynard Ferguson and many others, comparing the range and technique of these artists to a classical master like McNab is a bit like trying to compare a Picasso to a Rembrandt. Both are brilliant, but each in its own way. Whether you are yourself a trumpet player, or even just interested in uncovering a true gem for your own edification, I highly recommend that you acquire a copy of McNab's Exquisite. If you do, I believe that you will agree with me that McNab is one of the great trumpet players of our time, and perhaps one of the greatest of all time.

This is the first comment I have ever posted. Please excuse any unintended breaches in protocol.

Rwl10267 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And you've got the commenting thing down, header, signed your post, no problems. --Minderbinder 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again

We're up for another round of "I like polls so we may not recommend against them" on WP:PNSD. Please comment. >Radiant< 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Materialization

As I understand it, materialization was studied by the SPR and such folks during the spirit medium days (mediums manifesting ectoplasm, etc.). Also I believe Uri Geller claimed to manifest stuff, and he was/is studied by Parapsy. If you think this subject should rightly belong in the parody section, let me know. I see WP has an article called Materialization which someone has plastered the term Parapsychology all over. LuckyLouie 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No progress in EVP mediation

I'm puzzled by our mediator's lack of involvement. Could it be he's waiting for you to complete your "statement"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13_Electronic_Voice_Phenomenon#State_your_position) --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Thnks for your welcome..I notice you are sceptical of the other side, why is that?? Crystal Healer 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Martinphi

I guess this was bound to happen eventually, but I went ahead and initiated the WP:RFC on Martinphi. I thought you should know since you mentioned an RFC earlier. It's accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. Feel free to make expansions, corrections, or improvements wherever you see fit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

Here's a thought... there was an anti-voting essay (Voting Is Evil) but that had to be placed on meta; yet there's (of course) also a pro-voting essay on meta, and yet people insist on having two of those on enwiki as well. That's rather weird, wouldn't you say? >Radiant< 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)