User talk:ChemistryProf: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:30, 4 September 2009

Welcome!

Hello, ChemistryProf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sr13 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more OR on Transcendental Meditation please

Hi there. Your recent edit introduced WP:OR on the Transcendental Meditation article. Please come discuss with us on Talk:Transcendental Meditation before making any more such edits. Thanks! Tanaats 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanaats: Yes, I did see this last night. You put it up almost instantly, before I could insert my pre-written detailed reasoning in the discussion. It's not that I resent your taking out the changes. That was expected. I just was surprised it happened so fast. Do you have a little bell that goes off as soon as someone makes a change? Anyway, I was just following the guidelines, as were you. Have a good night! ChemistryProf 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

First off, welcome on board! You have already helped tighten up the article.

I respect your opinion that the intro isn't neutral and it is getting tended to, soon we'll have everyone happy.

On the other hand I don't respect your opinions about me:

"As a result, most readers with a scientific background would have guessed that the clause concerning the validity of the research was placed there by an editor wishing, perhaps unconsciously, to discredit the Transcendental Meditation technique... Thus, the apparent wish of the aforementioned editor was achieved. "

"To say that threatens the validity of the reseach only shows a lack of understanding of research and how it evolves. Any scientist reading that last sentence knows immediately that the author of the statement wishes to discredit the research, whether he is aware of that wish or not."

I don't respect them because they're REEEEEAAALLLLLYYYYY innacurate, and because wikipedia ain't the place to air them.

Please stop. Now.

Please keep your commentary and psychoanalysis about me and my motives, or any other contributer to yourself, along with your supposed "Any scientist" would recognize/understand statement. On here, you're just another Bozo on the Bus, like the rest of us! Please focus your commentary about edits on the CONTENT, not the contributor.

It's kind of a... well, law around here. WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

PEACE! Sethie 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sethie: I did not mean any of my comments to be personal. I was simply trying to show how most scientists I know would interpret the sentence. It was used to make a point that, even if you did not intend the sentence to be biased, it would appear that way to scientific readers. On the other hand, non-scientific readers, many of them at least, would likely have bought the spin and either would not have read further or would have read with a highly jaundiced eye. Having read a large percentage of the TM research and thousands of research articles in other fields, the peer reviewed TM research actually compares quite favorably in terms of rigor of methods and neutrality of the authors. All my discussion was about the CONTENT, not about any contributor. I do see how you could take it differently, though, and apologize for any offense you may have felt. Thank you for agreeing to one of my suggestions. I look forward to more fruitful discussions and revisions. ChemistryProf 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your appology! I didn't take offense to it, at all. I just didn't like how you were (unknowingly- you didn't know I was the one who wrote that sentence) talking about me.

For the record, it is flat out innacurate to say that this sentence was used to make a point, or that it was spin. As I said on the disucssion page, that sentence was inserted as a counter-balance to to an introduction which origonally listed some of the positive findings of TM research. At some point, someone took out the positives and left that counter-balance in. If it is really important to you to understand the context of that sentence, please browse through the archives of the disucssion (located at the top of the discussion page) to see an actual log of the discussion around why that sentence was placed there.Sethie 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sethie: Thanks for your time in trying to make this article balanced and neutral. Yes, I can see how the sentence came to be there, and that progression may have been logical, but by the time I read it, it had a spin, even though you did not intend it. I view this as a problem of the WP approach, that things tend to get disorganized and disjointed due to frequent insertions and especially deletions. To me, the whole Intro now reads rough and disconnected. I will put some suggestions in the discussion soon about how we can make it more accurate, more balanced, and more of a lead-in for the rest of the article. ChemistryProf 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't deny the version you read was unbalanced, I missed it, or I would have taken it out myself. I personally don't like the current intro very much, so I am curious to see what you come up with. Sethie 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal!

Hi again. I'd like to emphasize that nothing was intended personally. I took quite a bit of chemistry in college and it was a butt-kicker. To have become a chemistry professor you must be brilliant, and I mean it. I got batted around like a ping-pong ball when I first showed up on Wikipedia only weeks ago. My first edits got reverted like crazy by TimidGuy who is a professor at MUM. So it's not a POV thing that I reverted your edits. On an article like the TM article which represents strongly contrasting POVs one especially has to have the guidelines down pat, because you will always be called on it if you don't. It took me weeks before I even started to get a clue, mostly by watching how much more experienced editors conducted themselves and how they made their edits. I'm sure you'll come up to speed much faster than I did. I meant my "welcome" sincerely, it'll be nice to have you on the article. Welcome again. Tanaats 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tanaats. I'm sure we will enjoy this process. I do sincerely want to make this a Featured Article. I hope others will join with me in a spirit of cooperation and make this happen. ChemistryProf 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. And I think that FA is a laudable goal. Certainly we should strive to make edits that take steps toward that. Tanaats 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word Volume

I would like to ask of you if it possible for you to express yourself using less words? I haven't gone and counted words, and yet it appears as if your volume is somewhere at least double, maybe a bit more then mine and Tanaats combined.

The volume, for me, makes our discussions a bit of a chore.

That doesn't mean that you should, or have to, or ought to, or hell even CAN! Everyone has their own way of expressing themselves. And, it would certainly be much appreciated by me.... and I am guessing other users, though I cannot speak for them. Sethie 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, and do not intend to continue in such a wordy vein, but fully understanding the guidelines with which we are dealing and which need a consensual understanding before we can smoothly proceed requires considerable explanation and examples. I'm sure that after having reached that point of agreement, everything could become more compact.ChemistryProf 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you said that, because I also wanted to thank you for really wanting to go for mutual understanding on policy over content.... and in sitting with that, policy sounds to me like it would take more, well words, to hash out. It is a different approach then I have seen and I actually like it. Peace! Sethie 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad you agree. Peace is my real name. ChemistryProf 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? FAR OUT! I hope your middle name is N, and your last name is Love! :) Peace-n-Love! Sethie 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TM article Refs

Hey CP, in the TM article you mentioned a problem with the refs. I'm still not sure what you mean. I don't see any problem with them. One thing to remember is that as new refs are added the citation number in the article changes if the ref is added before that citation in the article. Also please be sure not to confuse the Refs on the talk page with the Refs in the article. They are two entirely different things. With that in mind, do you still see a problem? If so, let me know so we can fix it. thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KBob, I discovered that I was indeed confusing the article refs with the talk page refs. That was the only problem. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad we figured it out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To and of

Chem I originally went in to clean up the section. There was a signature there for some reason. The section as I undeatand it is about the reception this apsect of Hagelins' research has received from others ... the reaction to or reception to his reseacrh from others. One reacts to something. I think the syntax of "reception of" is not quite right. I had made that change before so just changed it again. I'm not attached to it, but I think its a syntax question.(olive (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I guess the syntax will depend on what the meaning actually is. Please change it to whatever you want. I don't think its a concern one way or the other.(olive (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

MUM and Hagelin

If you are a friend or colleague of John Hagelin's then it'd be fair if you'd disclose that. You've written that, " It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. " If that editor's POV is open for discussion then yours is too. Being an associate of Hagelin's doesn't mean you can't edit the article, but it helps put your views into context and being honest is usually a good policy. Will Beback talk 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 :I guess the syntax will  depend on what the meaning actually is.  Please change it to whatever you want. I don't think its a concern one way or the other.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC))
+== MUM and Hagelin ==
+If you are a friend or colleague of John Hagelin's then it'd be fair if you'd disclose that. You've written that, " It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. " If that editor's POV is open for discussion then yours is too. Being an associate of Hagelin's doesn't mean you can't edit the article, but it helps put your views into context and being honest is usually a good policy. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)