User talk:Baegis

Vandalism?

Please tell me how my edit would be considered vandalism. I am not sure why it would be considered that. Thanks! --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ohio State Buckeyes football

Re your message: I think so. =) It took me a bit longer to tag the sockpuppet because I went off to WP:AN to read up on the issue before I added the tag. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Taken care of. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ID articles

Would you mind explaining how my edits to those two articles violated NPOV. I clearly explained my reasons in the edit summaries. Please go into a little detail about the reverts. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed those two articles to better fit the sources. If you want it to say something else, find sources and put them in. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and Ars Alb

Baegis, Dana's revision, which you reversed, directly contradicts the sense intended. In his version, he makes it appear that the "high quality studies" differed from the overall body of studies and that for these "high quality studies" "Most of the studies were neither randomized nor blinded" would be an untrue statement. But, my version is factually correct and the implication of his version is just incorrect. It is an "obvious deduction" that my version is true. There were 105 studies. 1.3% were randomized and 7.8% were blinded (Table 3b). There is a problem with Linde in that they vary erratically between describing "studies" "experiments" and "tests", but the most generous calculation is that there were 242 experiments of which 26 were meta-analysed. So, at most 3 experiments that were in the meta-analysis were randomised and 23 were not. That counts as "most" in my book. The blinded experiments might amount to 19 in total and could have been part of the 26, but blinding and randomisation should go as a pair so the maximum number that were both blinded and randomised is also 3. However, the real picture is probably rather worse. The reason for restricting the meta-analysis to only 26 experiments included reasons other than this thing called a "Quality Evaluation>50%". It is this QE>50% (28 studies in total) that Dana keeps equating with "high quality". On that basis, the denominator for our percentages is 105 (studies) not 242 (experiments), so of the studies only 1 or 2 can be randomised and 7 or 8 blinded. Therefore of the 28 the he calls "high quality" at least 24 were not randomised and at least 18 were not blinded. My original wording is consistent with all of this and has the benefit of being verifiable and true.

Just thought you might like to have the background. I have a .pdf of both Cazin and Linde if you are interested. OffTheFence (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick brief on the differences. I'm sorry that you have to continue to rehash all of the information. After all of your work explaining the whole issue on the actual talk page (and the RS noticeboard), I had hoped this issue had been resolved. I guess it had not. Please feel free to come back over to help out when you can. Baegis (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Baegis and OTF, I previously asked for verification, and I consider OTF's above statement to do that. I will not edit war on this issue anymore. I simply asked for verification and finally got it (I am a reasonable man, at least, I think I am). Thanx OTF. By the way, Baegis, because I cannot participate on Talk pages, I can answer your question here about the page # for the Copeland book...and its reference to FDR: page 166. I plan to make an effort to collaborate more once my 7-day prison term is over. DanaUllman^Talk 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the talk pages at Royal Copeland, but I'm glad that we came to a good compromise. Please note that other editors WERE editing out the reference to the book on Copeland (for instance, see: [1]. I personally like the final result because two references make this point stronger...and they are good references. DanaUllman^Talk 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As the "other editor" (please name people Dana if you're going to link to places where they are easily identifiable,) I feel I should set the record here straight. I did not remove the reference Dana was edit-warring over, if you look here, and scroll down to the reference list, it is clearly still there. I removed what I felt was an unneeded duplicate reference for a statement that was already supported, with a reference that is already used in the article. I still think it is unnecessary but I don't think edit warring is a good thing, and I'm really not that bothered by its presence. I am glad that you are taking this opportunity to work more with people, Dana, and to improve your behaviour, but please don't misrepresent other editors views or actions as you have done here. >>Partyoffive (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)<<

User:Suckitlosers

Hi Baegis, B changed the block to indefinite based upon the fact that the username itself violates policy. Thanks for the congrats! Aleta ^Sing 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply

Hello Baegis, see [2]. Thanks! Happy Easter. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, please see my talk page for my reply to your statement about my addition of a category to an article. I would appreciate a reply. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Hadn't seen it before - if I still had a user page I'd be tempted to include it. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I lifted it from MastCell's user page. It changes periodically as MastCell tweaks it. I think it is downright hilarious. =) Baegis (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

treading lightly

Well, what I can say, I guess that treading lightly is not my speciality :D thanks for the advice anyways, I'll try to be extra-careful. However, Jehochman was right in that at least of my comments was off base and not based on actual diffs, and I took it out; so his warning was not just due to Dana complaining but based on real misbehaviour from me. Dunno about what happens to people that disagrees with Dana, but, whatever it is, I think I'm going to learn it soon :P . Mind you, Dana was right on some stuff, like in that there is someone using socks to stalk him, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown, I'm sorry that he thinks that I am one of them. If he didn't, then maybe he would pay more attention to some of my advice :( --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Thanks for helping out, but it appears another KKK-apologist has shown up. I'd rather stick with science, but there seems to be only 2-3 editors who have some historical knowledge of the true nature of the KKK editing the article. We have to help the good editors, which removing whitewashing (and what an apt term) of the racists. I need to get some sleep--can you watch over it? Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole mess is surreal. It seems they keep popping out of the woodwork. I really wonder what is going to happen when Gordon comes back, now that he has an ally. It is simply detestable that they make these edits under the guise of "accuracy" when anyone with a history book knows this is wrong. I'm having a hard time understanding which group of editors is more grating (fringies or racism apologists). But I will try to help out the best I can. Baegis (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize the whole lot of them are full of crap. Denialism of science, of history, of logic end up giving us the same list of crap. Homeopathic potions that are essentially water curing cancer. Creationists who think the world is 7000 years old. Racists who rely upon their version of science to support their offensive attitudes. It's all based on anti-intellectuallism, anti-science, and anti-logic. I never understood the ties between these groups until I started editing here. They're all obnoxious. We draw a line in the sand, and we don't let their denialism and anti-science cross it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)