Put new comments below
Past discussion can be seen through the History page

I am intermittently inactive.
NOTE: Status is currently intermittent for the foreseeable future. Comments may not be answered in short order. This does not imply the violation of any of the Wikipedia policies. I sign on when I can. My current access to wikipedia is not stable and as such I will not be on much. Wikipedia also has grown more closed and biased since my first edits and that saddens me. So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish. J. D. Redding 19:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna know what I think? My opinions, comments, and views ...

[At this Time External Article Access is Suspended]

There you can find the topics of the Wikinquisition (and it's Minions) and Wikpedia's POV Pushers (and the pseudoskeptics) ...
— JDR

Read Me First!

Please review these articles before commenting:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia:Citing sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability : Suppression of dissent
Fringe science : Perpetual motion : History of perpetual motion machines

From time to time I'll respond here and delete the old content; I'll leave them for a few weeks (mostly ... but lately I just clear them off the talk page; see history if you want the archive). J. D. Redding 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books I own

Partial listing

Ben Ikenson (2004). Patents : Ingenious Inventions, How They Work and How They Came to Be. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. 288 pages.
Iannini, R. E. (2003). Electronic gadgets for the evil genius: 21 build-it-yourself projects. TAB electronics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Valone, T. (2002). Harnessing the wheelwork of nature: Tesla's science of energy. Kempton, Ill: Adventure Unlimited Press.
Tesla, N., & Childress, D. H. (2000). The Tesla papers. Kempton, Ill: Adventures Unlimited.
Trefil, J. S. (1992). 1001 things everyone should know about science. New York: Doubleday.
Burke, J. (1978). Connections. Boston: Little, Brown.
Graf, R. F. (1974). Radio Shack dictionary of electronics. Fort Worth, Tex: Radio Shack.
Grafstein, P., & Schwarz, O. B. (1971). Pictorial handbook of technical devices. New York: Chemical Pub. Co.
Singer, C. J., & Williams, T. I. (1954). A History of Technology. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Volume 1 to 5)
Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc. (1957). Encyclopedia Britannica 1957. Chicago, Ill: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Chisholm, H. (1922). The Encyclopædia britannica; the new volumes, constituting, in combination with the twenty-nine volumes of the eleventh edition, the twelfth edition of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and independent library of reference dealing with events and developments of the period 1910 to 1921 inclusive. London: Encyclopædia Britannica, Co. (Volume 1 to 3)

External articles, papers, and publications

Bleow will be a listing of articles and pieces of nonfictional prose that I wrote for publication. J. D. Redding 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belief Systems and Mythology

Responses

So Long, and Thanks for the all comments

[replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responding to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]

[Removed due to censorship]

[*** deleted due to censorship ***]

George Westinghouse

Great job on this article - I just realised I inadvertently removed an image when I was fixing some vandalism/trolling.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for additions to Skandha

Not sure how you did it (or, more specifically, why your outer-table fix worked), but I very much appreciate your getting the introductory text and two sidebars to line up appropriately on the Skandha article. Good work. Also, your new article on personal continuity looks very interesting and smart. Well done! Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Reddi, I noticed that you are an experienced administrator who have edited paranormal-related articles, can you, as an impartial admin, make some objective comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal? Thanks. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin.

I will try to add to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal if I can. J. D. Redding 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I thought you were an admin because you have the sysop logo on the top of your userpage. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use that for my own uses ... watching things ... J. D. Redding

Kansas Geography

Thanks for the map.. it's a nice one, and helps me visualize things a bit. ----Steve 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Bessler

To be honest, the woodcut image is so vague it's difficult to say what kind of mechanism is even supposed to be represented. At any rate, it seems better to restore the description of the overbalancing wheel to its original position, because it doesn't mesh gramatically with the following paragraph. The article says only that this is a possible explanation, and that the actual details of Bessler's machines remain unknown. Casey Abell 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendices

Please stop changing the appendices to your personal non-standard format. There is an official order and naming convention for appendices (WP:LAYOUT) and you are making unnecessary work for other editors to fix your disruptive changing of articles to gratify your own sense of style. I will consider further such changes to be vandalism and report accordingly. IPSOS (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st ... don't remove/reclassify references used in an article ...

2nd ... Do you know the difference between a guideline and a policy? Get a grip and try not to accuse me of being a vandal ...

The guidelines are a good guide ... but other ways are better ... especially if the situations call for them. J. D. Redding 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that doesn't cut it, as 99%of editors work to the guidelines. And WP:LAYOUT is not just a guideline, it is part of the WP:MOS which is policy. IPSOS (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzzt! -50pts. WP:MOS = "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia." J. D. Redding 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with references

First warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was it "not constructive". Please do not remove / reclassify references of the article. J. D. Redding 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is reclassifying. I have looked at the histories. You are pulling in external links under references, then complaining when others take them back out. Please stop. IPSOS (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the external article links to verify the informaiton.

Thus, they are references to verify the material!!!! J. D. Redding 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would follow the standard, that would be clear. We do NOT SEPARATE websites from other references. They should all be cited in order of author's last name. If there is no author, they don't meet WP:V. IPSOS (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be cited in order of author's last name? What? When did you come up with that? Please tell me of hte disccussion about that.

How long have you been editing here at wikipedia? J. D. Redding 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW ... how are you suppose to cite the author of say like "Marconi's Early Wireless Experiments, 1895 IEEE History Center"?? Get a grip ... J. D. Redding 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzzt! -50pts. WP:MOS = "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia." J. D. Redding 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Third MOS warning

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further edits of this type will be reported as intentionally disruptive. They are disruptive because other editors are working to MoS. Therefore you have to guard and revert in order to get your idiosyncratic method to stick. If you think things can be improved, then argue for changes on Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout. IPSOS (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS quote "The Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically.". J. D. Redding 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to say I am a vandal!

You are attempting to say these are policies and these are guidelines. J. D. Redding 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

What you don't get is that every other editor who encounters your idiosyncratic formatting will attempt to standardize it. Don't push the river, it's 100,000 to 1 against you. What you are doing is disruptive for that reason. I am in the right, and when I take it to the admins, who do you think they will agree with, someone working to standards, or someone flouting them. IPSOS (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am encouraged to follow these guidelines ... I do so with flexibility.

If a rule keeps me from writing an informative, useful encyclopedia, I will ignore it.

Don't robotically foist this on editors.

If taken to an admin, what will they do? Side with someone that is not improving articles to make a an informative, useful encyclopedia? 'Side with someone that is improving articles to make a an informative, useful encyclopedia? Or someone robotically forcing guidelines (not "standards" or "policies"? I don't know ...

J. D. Redding 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just as much right to format the article my way as you have to format it your. More, because I am following the guideline. You are tilting at windmills and will have just as much success as is usually obtained in such a case: none, and you may get a community ban to boot. I for one will support one, because you do not listen or even try to understand my arguments. The guidelines were arrived at by consensus, thus you are editing against consensus. The correct thing to do as I have already pointed out is to discuss in the proper place to try to modify the consensus. Meanwhile, you are simply wasting you own and other editors time and energy. IPSOS (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the steps I taken have been to improving articles to make a an informative, useful encyclopedia. If you want to retrograde the articles, go ahead ... Wikipedia is not canvased. I am not wasting my time trying to have you recognize that you are robotically forcing guidelines without due care (as stated per WP:MOS). J. D. Redding 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:MOS. Thanks. J. D. Redding 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is robotic. I believe that you do not understand several distinctions with respect to how references are listed, and suggest you read WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE and the MoS yourself. I also don't believe you have really considered the fact that almost all other editors will use the MoS, WP:LAYOUT and example article as a guide, and thus your "improvements" will be short lived, regardless of which editor makes them conform with the guidelines. You underrate the guidelines, just because they are guidelines does not mean you can ignore them. I'm not going to bother to try to integrate your changes if you persist. I will simply revert. Then I will follow the reporting processes for disruptive editors, which you clearly are. IPSOS (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The terms under which I will consider mediation are as follows: take down your off-site attack pages against myself and other Wikipedia editors. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an attack site ... ... but I will remove a link to the off-site page about my opinions for the time of mediation, If you accept. J. D. Redding 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the off-site page entirely (not just the link), or I will not consider mediation to be able to reasonably proceed. If you truly believe what you have written on that page, I do not think that mediation is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can hide the published content for the time of the mediation (in my editing control panel, IIRC). and I can remove the link for the time of the mediation. Is this acceptable?

Will you accept some informal mediation? J. D. Redding 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the page from the internet, then I think we can proceed. --ScienceApologist 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished the page ... as a gesture of good faith. As of now the link goes to a 404. J. D. Redding 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you propose mediation, I will participate. I would suggest formal mediation as the mediation cabal tends to be too informal. We should also inform User:Halfblue, User:IPSOS, User:Pjacobi, User:William M. Connolley, and User:JzG as I would like to have it out all the issues surrounding these controversies here. --ScienceApologist 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you attempt an informal mediation 1st?

I am in discussion with some other editors, they can disclose themselves if they wish ...

... but I would like to deal with you directly ... not a "gang up" ...

Would you attempt an informal mediation with me directly 1st? J. D. Redding 16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to experience a successful informal mediation. Formal mediation is more likely to provide a lasting solution. I believe it is best if we at least inform all interested parties to the mediation. You have ruffled a lot of feathers around here and smoothing out just mine will not solve the main problems, as I see it. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF the informal mediation is unsuccessful .. then Formal mediation can be sought ...

I want to directly deal with you ... can we try to discuss thing 1st?

You have ruffled a lot of feathers around here, also.

I will try to discuss thing with you ... to solve the "main problems" ...

Can we try to discuss thing directly with each other 1st? J. D. Redding 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to include others who may have been in other disputes with me in the mediation. (User:Iantresman, User:Ed Poor, and User:Jonathanischoice come to mind as likely candidates). However you seem to think that there is something to be gained through direct communication, so that's fine with me. If you would like to do this off-site, you can e-mail me through the E-mail this user feature. --ScienceApologist 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to discuss thing directly with each other 1st? Can you state "yes" or "no" ...

Will you attempt to try to gain some measures through direct communication? Can you state "yes" or "no" ...

Will you be open to compromise? Can you state "yes" or "no" ...

J. D. Redding 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to discussion, yes. I will attempt to try to gain some measures through direct communication, yes. I am open to compromise on certain issues, mostly dealing with virtual interactions, yes. I am not open to compromise on content issues. --ScienceApologist 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the above to state that you will,

be open to discussion ... good.
be open to gaining some measures through direct communication ... good. I hope this can be done ...
be open to compromise on certain issues ... good. I am too ...
be open to compromise on virtual interactions ... good . I am too ...

Just to clarify, though ...

A. You will be open to compromise on all issues? Can you state "yes" or "no" ...

B. You will not be open to compromise regarding actions on issues regarding content? Can you state "yes" or "no" ...

J. D. Redding 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not open to compromise on all isues, nor will I be open to compromise regarding issues of content. --ScienceApologist 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not open to compromise on all issues.

Not be open to compromise regarding actions on issues regarding content.

Then you are not willing to go through informal mediation?

By your latter statements ...

You are concerned with only certain issues, I would suppose that you value, and virtual interactions only.

You are not interested in reaching agreement on all issues nor, it seems, are you interested in reaching an agreement regarding actions on issues regarding content.

Without such there is not a genuine desire on your the part to find a positive solution to the disputes.

You also seem not to care about the various interests and objectives, from these statements.

This is not true faith mediation. It is not openly striving to achieve conciliation through negotiation. I do find this deeply troubling.

I will consider this momentarily.

J. D. Redding 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I confess, after reading the above, I have no idea what this dispute is about, what article is being referenced, or what is needed to resolve the dispute. Please be specific. I am happy to offer advice if either of you can explain the problem clearly to a neutral outsider. The conversation above, however, provides no useful context. -Amatulic 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that I am being unreasonable to ask that all issues and all actions on issues regarding content be negotiable in a mediation process? J. D. Redding 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation isn't an open-ended all-inclusive thing. No mediator would agree that the issues to be mediated can balloon out of control, up to and including changing every policy and guideline that governs Wikipedia content. When you go into mediation, you should do so with an understanding of specific issues to be mediated. I still do not understand the context of this dispute. -Amatulic 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do or do not think that I am being unreasonable? I only ask again to see if I am being completely out of bound in asking this.

I am concerned about reaching a

compromise on interaction with ScienceApologist,
being able to compromise on all issues, and
in reaching an agreement/compromise regarding ScienceApologist's actions and my own actions on issues regarding content.

I have not thought about changing policy and guideline.

Thanks you for any reply. J. D. Redding 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I re-wrote my answer too many times and the meaning got obscured. When I said "no I don't" I meant "no I don't think it's reasonable for mediation to include unspecified issues." I brought up policy and guideline only because you say the dispute involves content, so policy and guideline would be relevant.

It seems to me that:

In reaching a compromise on interaction, each party needs to specify exactly what they expect from the other first. I don't see that.
That will lead to being able to compromise, but the issues to be compromised on need to be stated.
If actions are personal, a compromise is necessary. But if actions concern content, then policies would influence the actions of other editors with respect to content.

I'm not sure what else to say. It would be nice if ScienceApologist left a comment. I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion because I expected a dispute needed resolving. I can see there is a dispute going on, but I don't know what it is or what brought it on. There isn't much else I can offer unless you have examples of specific article content that you are both disputing. If this is a dispute over behavior, then the Third opinion process probably isn't the right way to resolve it. -Amatulic 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks you for your comments.

I will try to think of specifics exactly on expectations, instead of "unspecified issues". Maybe that would allow me and him to be able to compromise on those issuess ...

I will try to think about the issues and, as you point out, they need to be stated .. this I think helpful. Thank you.

I think that some actions have been personal, so a compromise is necessary ... somehow ... I just don't know how to do that with him as it seems that he is going to not mediate in good faith ...

Actions do concern content and policies, such as NPOV, should influence the actions of editors with respect to content ... but don't. I am at a loss to what to do about that, as he will not consider compromising on his POV (eg., any compromise regarding actions on issues regarding content).

Thanks you again for your comments. I appreciate your input.

I do still find it hard to see that there is a genuine desire on his part to find a positive solution to the disputes. Maybe when I can come back with more specifics, it will be better. I can hope. J. D. Redding 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have did a great job a with your 'Third opinion' ... it may not be a process to resolve this. But I do appreciate your thoughts. J. D. Redding 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New criticism, comments, and feedback