User talk:TenOfAllTrades

Talk archives
November 2004 to March 2005 April and May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August and September 2005 October and November 2005 December 2005 to February 2006 March to May 2006 June to August 2006 September and October 2006 November 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to January 2008 February 2008 to November 2008 December 2008 to February 2009 March 2009 to October 2009 November 2009 to May 2010 June 2010 to September 2010 October 2010 to November 2011 December 2011 to November 2012 December 2012 to December 2014

Comment committee

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by thank you...

Your description of RS was superb in its generality, specifically....A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) Is it ok with you if I modify it to achieve a tad more generality so that it doesn't apply only to MEDRS? Just wondering what other important guidelines we could use? I think you've presented the most intelligible, comprehensive and succinctly presented response that I've ever read. Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ancient (and recurring) RD history

Hi, Ten. In this edit (in a thread seven years ago, which was already titled "Medical and legal questions (for the nth time)"; I wonder which time we're up to by now?), you wrote: "Mike Godwin was asked for comments on the [RD] guideline back in August 2007; as far as I know he has offered no objection then or since." By any chance do you remember where that discussion took place? I couldn't find any mention of it in the RD talk page archives; the closest I could find was this edit of Theresa Knott's a few months later, in which she mentions Brad Patrick. (But please don't spend a lot of time looking. The current discussion, if you haven't come across it and if you care, is here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poking quickly through the respective talk pages, it looks like Mike Godwin was invited (User talk:MGodwin#Medical advice guideline) to comment on the medical advice guidelines in August 2007. As far as I am aware, he offered no response or objection in that thread (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice/Archive 1#Serious concerns with this content) or anywhere else. I'm afraid that's all I can come up with.

To be honest, I took WT:RD off my watchlist ages ago, and I'm seldom active on the Desks themselves. The Science desk used to be a remarkable resource, where editors made a serious effort to find useful sources and references and citations. Now it's mostly just StuRat bullshitting off the top of his head. (The problem with StuRat is that he's almost as smart as he thinks he is, and he trusts his own best guesses a little too much. His answers are often correct, but it's impossible for the poor sods reading his 'wisdom' to tell what's based on real knowledge, what's a guess, and what's a wildly inaccurate but clever-sounding stab in the dark. And prolific as he is, he sets a bad example for the ever-decreasing number of new editors who might volunteer there.)

Meanwhile, the talk page is a cesspit of bickering among certain 'regulars', interspersed with libertarian bleating about having a right to spout whatever nonsense dribbles out of people's imagination, actual references be damned. Just not worth it anymore, and it's little wonder that the traffic on the Desks is so much slower than it used to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Can't argue with much you've said; the decline of the RDs since their golden age has certainly been sizeable and sad.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty, thanks.

While we often disagree about things, I appreciate your honesty when you stated:

I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach

in the recent arbitration case. This comment actually means a lot to me, as I have really made an effort to be as nonpartisan as possible, especially recently as I have begun editing, I'm actually quite honoured that you noticed. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any misunderstanding, "disingenuous" is not a compliment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I guess people don't like me as much as I thought. Another good word is mendacious. You can say that to somebody's face and they won't know they've been insulted until they have had time to look it up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I'm reminded of my favorite George W. Bush press conference, where, in the course of explaining why waterboarding people is an essential component of freedom, he reminded us that we were dealing with people who had "been trained, in some instances, to disassemble!" Perceiving the audience's confusion, Bush helpfully explained: "That means not tell the truth." Ah, here it is. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go

Come on, take it to ArbCom, let's see how far we can go. Dreadstar ☥ 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going around shopping for fights is no way to be. You made a really ill-considered unblock to try to override a clear community-imposed ban, and it reflects poorly on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you genuinely believe that if a poorly-judged act isn't taken immediately to ArbCom, it can't be criticized? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know where you're getting that. I'm saying if my judgment is so poor as you indicate, then removal of the bit and banning by ArbCom is the real path. Dreadstar ☥ 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, get a grip. Wait until tomorrow or next week, and re-read this thread. I'm not going to spend any more time on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you spent enough time digging up an old diff from an article I accidentally recreated in your attempt to undermine what I was trying to do. Read your own diffs bucko. Dreadstar ☥ 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2]. Childish and embarrassing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further vicious attacks noted. Glad to see you eventually reconsidered. Still very concerned if this is your approach to concerns about, and use of, your admin tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my comments did get out of hand. I let some personal issues affect my editing, you were just posting what you thought was right. Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology. We all go through times when our heads aren't in a good place for editing Wikipedia. Hopefully going forward you'll be able to recognize those times before you pick up the tools or hit 'Save page'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sock

[3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get some spirit

You say in this edit, "Trying to come up with a blanket statement or rule often creates as many problems as it solves—you tend to end up with a subset of editors who are determined to enforce the literal and specific wording of the rule, rather than considering what the rule is actually meant to accomplish." But the Policy policy (not a typo) says, as a matter of policy, that "Policy and guideline pages should ... Be clear [and] ... Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." (Emphasis added.) Thus, by policy mature policies should be considered to plainly express the spirit of the rule in the literal and specific wording of the rule. Therefore, there should be no need to inquire further into the spirit or purpose of the rule, the literal and specific wording of the rule should control, and common sense should be applied to properly determine how that wording is to be applied in the particular case. Yer friendly neighborhood rule-enforcer, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi, would you mind clarifying your comment on AN/I? I'm trying to make sure that none of the comments are ambiguous so that we get a clear result. I interpret your post as: support ban from all human biomedical and animal altmed, but not from animal biomedical in general. Is that correct? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Wotnav

A tag has been placed on Template:Wotnav requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hey, this article took me to this unfinished thread, in which you were involved. I would like to know your opinion on that? Mhhossein (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say, really. It looks like someone made a poorly-formed request at RSN after failing to participate in a talk page discussion. I drew no further conclusions at the time, and draw none now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in pursuing this issue. Hwr, thanks for your explanation. Mhhossein (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme

She is a woman, just so you know, since you were using male pronouns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I came here to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and amended. She is quite the piece of work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Hi! Would you be willing to make the argument you make here at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Energy Catalyzer? I think it's a really good argument -- good enough that perhaps we should consider handling all similar DRN cases that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to make it. I meant what I said when I said that (a) I don't have much free time on my hands right now, and (b) that DRN is shaping up to be a massive time sink. Moreover, I am very wary of encouraging editors to see BlackLight Power as a more general standard; it's still a pretty flawed article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matidia

This is a total blast from the past, but since 2005 the article on Matidia (Trajan's niece and Hadrian's mother-in-law) has identified her as "Salonina". I'm looking for evidence that this is correct; all I can find points to "Salonia" (without the second n). As far as I can tell, the second n stems from your edit. As I say, this is all ancient history (doubly so!), but thanks if you can provide any clarification! Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any page moves in the article history, so I'm guessing that I probably just copied the article title as it existed at the time I did the other wikifying. In other words, the name would appear to stem from the anonymous IP who created the article in March 2005, rather than my minor tidying in April 2005. If the sourcing is better – or at least exists, honestly – for a different spelling of the name, I'm definitely not going to object to a page move and correction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, good point. Thanks for your response! Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Revert My Edit to the Rossi article?

Hello Ten, pardon my directness, but you seem to not know what is happening in LENR research. You objected to the fact that I posted a link to a press release in which Darden Enterprise/Cherokee had acquired rights to Rossi's technology. Given the one-sided tone of the existing article, are you suggesting that it is not relevant to record the fact that one of the most successful eco-entrepreneurs in the world has paid 12 million for Rossi's tech is something Wikipedia should hide from its readers. In my talk page comments I suggested that the article in its present state, given what has happened over the last four years since the majority of prominent edits were put in place, borders on defamation. Your abrupt removal of a fact that is critical to the reader's determining the real status of Rossi's work as reflected in numerous online sources tends rather to worsen than improve this situation. Here are some of those links:

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/tom-darden-reveals-why-he-backed-rossi http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html http://revolution-green.com/tom-darden-man-behind-rossi/ http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html

So, since you don't like a formal press release from a Darden company, even if it is merely being used to prove what it dos prove, which is that Darden's due diligence led him to buy Rossi's tech (a highly relevant fact in Rossi's biography, as anyone who has actually followed this matter, as opposed to arbitrarily censoring it is aware), which of these third party sources would you like to document the same claim? Because they each, in one way or another, do so. Thank you for keeping an open mind. --BenJonson (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the claims made by Rossi and friends has been extensively discussed at Talk:Energy Catalyzer; I'm not going to reinvent the wheel to re-explain why posting Rossi's press releases isn't a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply illustrates a remarkable disconnect from reality and lack of awareness about the current state of the discussion about LENR generally and Rossi more particularly. The press release is NOT from Rossi; it is from Darden Industries. But perhaps you read it so quickly that you confused Darden, an eco-entrepreneur worth a couple of billion, with Rossi. This has NOTHING to do with Rossi's "claims." It is fact that Darden acquired the technology, reportedly for 12$ m. dollars. Here's the release again:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html. Do you see that Cherokee Industries is the holding company? Rossi had nothing to do with the press release.

Moreover, there are multiple third party reports, including stories in Fortune magazine and the Huffington Post, that confirm the press release. But you were too fast on the "revert" button to make further inquiry.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html

Even *Fortune* magazine has covered this: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/27/tom-darden-on-lenr-interview-in-fortune-magazine/comment-page-1/

Sorry that I must reinvent the wheel by illustrating with these links and methodological proviso (this is not about Rossi's claims at all). This is an unfortunate illustration of how Wikipedia has difficulty, in the words of Adam Gopnik, dealing with topics where "one side is wrong but doesn't know it." I have a feeling that in the coming weeks and months the prejudice manifest in this article by failure to document critical developments in Rossi's career such as this (and the 2013 Lugano report, which 2 years later STILL isn't mentioned in the article) will happen despite you cavalier and misconceived objections.--BenJonson (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]