User talk:TechBear

Gene Robinson revert

Please take great care when labeling changes as vandalism (which has a constrained definition) and reverting them, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I had seen the name, and assumed it was the same kind of vandalism that the article tends to get; my own quick search showed it used only on websites critical of Bishop Robinson. Now that I've read your cite, I apologize for my revert. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your pre-warning. I'm new and I have a question.

Hello! Yes i am very new here, and as you can see still very unaware of the many rules/regulations/functionality of wikipedia as an editor. I will not delete any information. I was not aware that I was doing so. I am simply trying to post my contribution, and it keeps getting deleted. Is there any way I can post my contribution without it continually being deleted? (slickarette)

Typically when this happens, you should take the matter to the article's talk page: go to the article, click on the Talk tab at the top of the page, then select new section. Give it a title, then post a request for comment about your recent edits. Do NOT just copy your changes: explain why you feel your changes are better than what is there already. Put four twiddles at the end of your comment, ~~~~, which tells the database to add your signature. People who follow the article will respond. You can keep track of comments by clicking on the watch tab; all changes to the article or its talk page will be noted on your my watchlist button.

Keep in mind that you have already run out the Three Revert Rule. You can comment on the Talk page, but I would strongly recommend not making any more changes to the article within the next 24 hours. Also, as I noted, using multiple accounts is VERY frowned upon, especially when they are used to try and circumvent rules like 3RR. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

POV

Careful throwing POV around. (I don't know why I linked it there besides I like that page.) This certainly was editorializing, that's the point of the tag, but not POV. Your edit also got rid of the word coatrack which the article (not list despite the title) certainly is. (The garage sale bit is a reference to The Big Bang Theory.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I call them like I see them. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

American College of Pediatricians

Homiletic & Pastoral Review is one of the most well-respected pastoral magazines in the world. It is not simply a blog. And the reference provided is from an article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review written by a highly informed and respected physician who is an expert in his field.

When ACPeds asked Dr. Collins to identify the specific research that was misleading and incorrect, he failed to identify a single peer-reviewed article. Sallysue1159 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote and matching reference that I deleted did not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source. I will concede that I may have been in error calling it a blog. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk soon

I agree that the SAV001 page was spammy but I do think that Wikipedia is a place where potential trial participants get some amount of service. As you say, recruitment should not happen here, but something should I am not sure what. Thanks for your email. I am still thinking about it and talking it over with others. I would like to talk to you soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your allegation, judgement of fact and your stated intent to immortalize the hickey you sought to apply

You should be aware that not every IP is placing an edit for the first time - just as you should be aware that edits are presumed to be placed with good faith.

I myself have actually been here since even before 9/11, and quite literally have tens of thousands of edits. Around 6 years ago I estimated it was roughly 35,000. I haven't stopped since to work out that number again. Before the rules were changed I created articles and participated at all levels. These days I just cajole others into creating them for me. And I myself even from time to time have cause to remind another editor of the house rules.

I was surprised at first that you took issue with such an innocuous edit, but then I realized that I had used a source that can agitate some who work from, and see in others, an ideological bias. After a quick look at your edit history I saw further indication that this was possible.

As I was a little taken aback by the fact that you chose not to select a more suitable ref as one does who tries to keep with the civil Wikipedia practice of improving citations in preference to reversion - I decided to test my hypothesis.

I added a poorer ref intentionally, but one from an ideologically more acceptable direction for you. Compare the two, here side by side. The Atlantic and The Weekly Standard. Notice that the one you objected to and reverted on sight is a dry and factual reportorial account written by a journalist while the one you found acceptable is a breezy opinionated observation piece by a blogger who also coughs up words for Gawker and the Onion.

The result of the experiment, as you can see, was absolutely as predicted by the hypothesis. 12.144.158.23 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Article Probation on Men's rights movement

This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi,

I responded to your edit on the talk page. Please respond there. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, unless you feel like replying, Someone pointed out a ref to Morgellons in the body of the article. Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bible and Homosexuality

I've noted that you reverted my edits while it remains under discussion. Your input is certainly welcome and perhaps much needed. So feel free to review the citations and share your thoughts. I'm curious to hear your perspective. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OSC

Perhaps you could comment on Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#Comic_Con. It is a statement of fact, but it is being used as WP:SYN. The first statement implies causality of the second statement. It is this causality that is at issue, not the fact that he did not attend. The fact that he did not attend has no weight in the article if not for the causality, which is speculation by a single source - inappropriate for a WP:BLP. As for leaving the source, it supports the first statement as well, so there was no sense in removing a valid secondary source. Morphh ^(talk) 14:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TechBear. You have new messages at Lordvolton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.