User talk:Tearlach

Archive1 July 2005 - January 2006

If you have replies to any ongoing discussions now in Archive1, please restart the thread on this page. Tearlach 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I Help You?

You seem to have some concerns expressed here [[1]]

First time I have heard of them. Might be worthwhile spelling out what is bothering you to see if there is anything I can help you with.

Look forward to hearing from you.

The Invisible Anon 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only part pertaining to your edits is my comment on openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree.... In my view, the material at User:86.10.231.219 is well within the area of personal attack, and a breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Such 'hit lists' and detailed documentation of perceived wrongs are never seen as creditable to a user. The objections are well summed up at User talk:Jfdwolff#Advice re:86.10.231.219_requested. Tearlach 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the dialogue here [[2]] today with Kd4ttc assist? The Invisible Anon 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you want to infer motives or collect evidence for whatever takes your fancy, there's nothing stopping you doing it privately. Doing it publicly is the breach of the personal attack policy and good faith guideline. Tearlach 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have taken a further look at the personal attack policy. Whilst I am not sure I agree with your interpretation, I will modify my user page in the light of your comments. The Invisible Anon 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths". As you'll gather from the page Allopathic medicine, it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. Tearlach 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are practical issues over this terminology ... link to diff ... I hope that explains and that there clearly is a need for a name to describe our western kind of medical practice. The Invisible Anon 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't - and this is another problem. I tell you that some people find a term pejorative, and you bludgeon me with a 500-word essay on the problems of finding terminology and how the whole categorisation is fuzzy anyway. It's like asking someone not to use the term "queer" because of its pejorative sense, and getting back 500 words on the problems of finding a term for homosexual people and how there's a continuous gradation between gay and straight anyway. In either case, the theoreticals are irrelevant. I told you that the specific terminology you're using, "allopath", is taken by some as derogatory. Tearlach 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tearlach, Kd4ttc attacted my attention to this discussion. I have also asked John Whaleto to stop the use of said terms with the intention to label or insult[3]. I've noted your response.

I believe the name-calling is souring the debate to an intolerable degree. I intend to report further attacks on WP:ANI with a request for a short-term ban for WP:NPA violations. JFW | T@lk 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Someone is vandalizing the Al-Ahbash page again. Please, help to make it secure. Thanks McKhan

refreshing slap in the face

I was amused by the slap in the face explanation. He does go on. Steve Kd4ttc 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ehrenfest

I just noticed your modification of Paul Ehrenfest. Actually, Ehrenfest had another son, Paul Jr I believe; there is a picture of him on Einstein's lap, see: http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/pers2a.html and http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/contact/persfotos_einstein/Einstein2.jpg The caption says 'Einstein at the home of Leiden physics professor Paul Ehrenfest with his son on his lap'. Cute as it may be, I don't think it belongs in a biography. I actually edited the tragic story about the murder/suicide out of the main text JdH 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Martin

Hi there Tearlach - I have done an American Mathematical Society search for his research papers, and it came up with a few - You may want to reconsider your vote, although I don't know enough about the stuff to explain it. Most of the junk about his hobbies should be removed though. Blnguyen 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tunnard

If I am reading the history correctly, you tagged this article with a copyvio and the notation "suspected offline copyvio". However, you did not either (1) add it to the daily copyvio page log Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_March_4 with supporting detail, nor (2) did you cite the offline work from which you believe the article was copied.

An editor at the help desk inquired about why the article was removed, and asserts that it was not a copyvio. Since you did not follow up on the copyvio tag nor cite a source, I am going to revert it to the last full version. If you have identified a source that it infringes, please feel free to re-tag it, but please complete the copyvio listing process according to the instructions in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Thanks, MCB 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jill_McCormick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jill_McCormick.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst and sign!

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Hello Tearlach. When you use template tags on talk pages, it'd be much appreciated if you could substitute according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template substitution. Just add subst: to the tag; for example, {{subst:bv}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks. :) // Rory096 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job Collins document

Midgleyis using WP:RS to delete a link to a Collins document [4] [5]. He is just pushing his POV using WP:RS. john 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sections at WP:RS on reliability, personal websites and partisan websites cover the situation, and generally advise against using personal websites as sole sources. Tearlach 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgley is pushing his POV. "Generally" isn't exactly a rule. So this would exclude Quackwatch [6]? as it is a personal and partisan website. Can you define "sole source"? john 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally is exactly a rule - as in "as a rule". If an exception is to be plead then work out the basis on which Whale is an exception to the general rule. Quackwatch, to note one of its differences from Whale, has an advisory board of people who are listed and indeed accessible. To pick another disimilarity between Quackwatch and Whale, Dr Barrett to the best of my knowledge has not either written articles in WP, nor introduced links to his own site into articles written by others. John has done both of those things. Should this not be in an RFC in general space, since otherwise it is likely to be repeated over and over by John? Midgley 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing your POV. The only exception here are the ones you like to make. First it was some rfc on whale at talk mmr which you took it upon yourself to judge on, now you are using WPRS. I'd love to slide this rule over all of the Wiki links, like Quackwatch which is clearly a partisan POV site. Also I take exception to you stalking me. john 07:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John is writing about me. That catches my legitimate interest. WP:External links to normally avoid is relevant to Whale. I think this needs to be noted on John's talk page, in case anyone in the future takes an interest in the argument on linking. A summary would be best. Midgley 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you beat me to commenting. As you say, Quackwatch is backed by a collective advisory board of solid mainstream credentials; www.vaccination.org.uk is just a scrapbook of anti-vaccination porn. (I use that term in a metaphoric generic sense, for something that focuses on a single idea not to inform, but to excite, gratify and reinforce the feelings of those already sold on that idea). Another reason not to link to it is the amount of copyvio there, articles lifted completely from in-copyright books and periodicals. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us". Tearlach 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less inevitably, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto You may care to consider commenting. Midgley 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Your comments on Talk:rational trigonometry directed at me seem inappropriate. The information is useful but you could put it on my own talk page. As you know from the information sheet you reviewd, the recommendation to seek dispute resolution came from Pepsidrinka and met with skepticism on my part. You also are aware that I stated I saw no "problem" myself, and that I requested any response should be directed to me privately. I requested advice, on my talk page, as to how to move this discussion forward in the Wikipedia environment. You can review the talk page itself if this is unclear. Pepsidrinka appeared in response to the help tag. It's nice to know you agree with me so emphatically but it's not so nice to have that point made in such an inappropariate setting. I wonder if I should edit it out. I favor a full historical record but it is certainly misplaced. I'll be watching here, or you can come over to my place.

No, the inappropriateness is invoking dispute resolution, in particular mediation, over a matter that hasn't even reached the point of acrimonious discussion. Do you believe everything people advise you? If it met with skepticism, why did you do it? Calling for mediation is a high-level option - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - and likely to be perceived as bad faith when there are no grounds for it. Tearlach 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rational trigonometry

If Norman Wildberger writes "The way I became interested in this topic was...", that is autobiographical. If he writes: "Wildberger was the first to understand this particular point", that is autobiographical. If he writes, "The way in which Fibonacci's identity is used in rational trigonometry is...", that is not autobiographical. He's not writing about himself or about his achievements; he's writing about mathematics. Michael Hardy 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is a quibble. I'd take someone writing about a topic they themselves invented, and in which they're still prime mover, as a definite breach of Wikipedia:Autobiography. Tearlach 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "quibble", that's another reason why I think writing about oneself should not be forbidden outright. Perhaps a guideline should warn people to be very careful when doing so and point out some specific pitfalls involved. But I think it's really a stretch to consider such a thing autobiography. This policy (if that's what it is) would deprive Wikipedia of expertise in cases like this. Michael Hardy 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

I've noticed that you made several edits in the history of this page some time ago. I have put a bit of time into the article (as both User:Allthesestars and User:Adasta in an attempt to bring this article up to scratch. I think the page would benefit greatly from a few dedicated editors, and was wondering if you would be interested in looking over this article once again?

Citing sources and adding an NPOV "Themes" section is high on the priority list of this article. Adasta 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll have a glance. Tearlach 11:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC. Troll. Remember above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC to Mount Personal Attacks, Harrassment & Uncivility

An RfC "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." It must be about a pre-existing dispute. There must have been prior attempts to resolve it.

This RfC was commenced by User:Midgley in a fit of pique after I had properly canvassed opinions of other editors about seeking a block on him because of his continuing "obnoxious" behaviour. That arose because User:Pansophia had approached me for advice about User:Midgley Wikistalking her and editing articles he had never previously shown interest in. He started Wikistalking her after she supported me when Midgley impersonated me and his sockpuppets were blocked.

The RfC was done immediately after the failure of his "Nth" attempt (again in pique) to have my talk page deleted - see here for the outcome - [[7]].

He was in such a hurry he did not even start the RfC properly. See here where the full extent of the dispute is described as "troll" - [[8]]. An RfC is not meant to be entered into lightly.

Then, instead of dealing with it properly he visited your talk page and invited you to join in.

You have now raised further multiple "disputes" and involving multiple individuals.

There is also no single pre-existing "dispute". This is also the first time in this RfC that this comprehensive allegation of "trolling" has been raised.

The RfC also contains gratuitous abuse such as use of terms like "dick".

Overall, this is an oppressive use of the RfC and not a bona fide use of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) & amended 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. I explained the typical process for RFC development at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate dispute not covered by the RfC. I am following the dispute resolution procedures.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the separate dispute, with whom is it, and why is it on Tearlach's user talk page? I do not think it is a separate dispute and I have copied it and will copy further reelvant material tot eh RFC talk page. It would save time and effort and clarify matters if you did th ediscussion and response there rather than on several other user's pages. If you persist, someone may assume that you are deliberately causing difficulty and confusion. Midgley 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate. These are simple specific points. I look forward to hearing from you but I soon might not be able to spend much time on this and will have to pick it up later. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219 is about your conduct. Continuing that conduct in response to it comes under the existing RFC. Take your responses there. Tearlach 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about your conduct in running an RfC in this way and not my conduct. See [[9]]:-

"RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."
"Note that the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. It may also be the first step in dispute resolution leading to arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

I have some considerable justification raising this with you on the basis of what you have been doing and your overall conduct of this matter.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take your responses to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tearlach does that mean whether you will respond or not depends on which page in Wikipedia the complaints are placed on? Are you saying that you will respond if these complaints appear in the talk pages of the RfC but not here (even though this is a separate dispute from the RfC you started).

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a separate dispute; it is a response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Take it there. Tearlach 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to a reasonable position you are taking. I am raising justified concerns about your conduct (not my conduct) and you are not prepared to say whether you will answer them here or anywhere else. I should be greatly obliged if you would reconsider the position you are taking because it is indefensible. Are you prepared to say whether you will discuss the valid well-grounded concerns I have raised.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.10.231.219 who is presenting the confusing appearance of being the User:The Invisible Anon should take his complaint, and his dispute, and his view of the workings of WP to an RFC, whether the existing one (which as he says could be turn out to be about someone other than him, on a cold day in hell I think) or to a brand new RFC he creates, otherwise by making threats on talk pages he is harrassing other users. "Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate." would be one of the funniest things since Pooh puzzled over Wol's doorknocker, if it seemed humourous. Procedure. Midgley 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]