User talk:Raymond arritt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
45px This user is a member of RSMT - the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team".[1]
Care of the cow brings good fortune.

The awesome BULLSTAR is hereby awarded for facing down so much BS and yet managing to not lose your self control.--MONGO 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)





If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.


Greenwich
August 2015
3
Monday
02:14 UTC


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Liz 160 51 7 76 10:38, 4 August 2015 1 days, 8 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 02:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Tone[edit]

Hello Raymond. You have taken a previous interest in the "Arnoldo Aleman" page. Over a year ago you were involved in locking out my username "Spartanad" for edit warring. I had it coming that time but wonder if you might take another look at the page? I am trying to keep bias out of the "Corruption" section and am being twinkled and now personally attacked. In fact, the user "Brusegadi" is apparently trying to identify me personally, although unsuccessfully to this point. It seems to be personal, especially on the "El Pacto" portion of the discussion page. Would you please take a look and let me know your thoughts? Spartanad (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF?[edit]

So what the heck is going on around here these days? Do you think it's a full moon, or bad wheat, or folie à plusieurs? Or is the matrix starting to degrade? Even by Wikipedia's standards, this place is going nuts. MastCell Talk 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not just me. I've been wondering if it's a perverse form of spring fever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Global warming. It's been above 100 here for the past 7 days, and it's only freaking May. I wonder if shoreline property on Hudson Bay will be a good investment. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I just can't wait till the Northwest Passage opens up. I'm tired of people giving global warming a bad rap. How cool will it be to be able to travel by boat from Nova Scotia to Alaska yearround? MastCell Talk 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Very cool. I was thinking how many seals and whales will live longer and more productive lives because polar bears will be extinct. People are so damn short-sighted about the melting of the ice caps.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I see your new userbox, it all makes sense: "May is mental health awareness month". MastCell Talk 17:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Dick Nixon kicked that off while Veep. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting... not Thomas Eagleton? :) MastCell Talk 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Natural selection is good, is it not? Tparameter (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Good"? That all depends on whether you're being selected for or selected against, n'est-ce pas? MastCell Talk 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68[edit]

This happens when things get out of hand. Sadly, Cla68 is quite a good editor. I actually gave a little help out to one of his articles on an obscure Japanese medical officer from WWII. But it appears if you oppose his POV on anything else, he goes on attack. Apparently, you disagree with his global warming POV. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know that Cla68, because of his featured content in a narrow area, is the final arbiter here? He is above Jimbo and Arbcomm. He is a Very Important Wikipedian and has often been quoted in the press.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, I was thinking as I was driving in to work today, I don't need this stuff. I'll wait and see what happens, but if he opens an arbcom case I'm outta here. Life is too short to waste time proving that I'm not made of wood. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw hell, I servived a arbykom kase .. di'n't her me nun.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Definite and indefinite[edit]

"Raymond Arrit is taking wikibreak"? You must be Russian guy, as do you not use indefinite article in sentence. :) Hey, the good news is that every period of lunacy is followed by a period of reactive sanity. (The bad news is that the reverse is also true). Methinks we're overdue. I can't run the global warming walled garden by myself; I'm too busy pushing the fringe POV that HIV causes AIDS. Have a good holiday weekend and keep up the good work. :) MastCell Talk 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Only sockpuppet being Russian guy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the excerpt on Boris' userpage. A bit reminiscent of Zoshchenko. MastCell Talk 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's brilliant. My sock is boringly predictable and has no witty excerpts. Clearly, I buy my socks at Wal-Mart, and you buy yours somewhere far more artsy. Perhaps you knit them yourself at Burning Man? KillerChihuahua?!? 05:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic[edit]

Hi Raymond, I read your post about Commonname, and I read the page itself. Thanks for pointing this out. I agree with you, in general, I'm not sure which article you feel is misnamed, or even if you are suggesting that. The point you made about an osteopathic grad being referred to as an allopath is interesting. The problem is that I've never heard any physician referred to as an allopath. But I have read many sources which discuss an "osteopathic" graduate entering an "allopathic residency." Such a person is said to have "allopathic training." It wouldn't really make sense to say they had "MD" training, since they are still a DO. It would make sense to say they had "ACGME" training, since this is the body that accredits "allopathic" programs. Of course, this is all very confusing. But I do think it needs to be explained, not avoided. That's really the core of my point. Explain the terminology that is used, as neutrally as possible, using reliable sources. This language is used by the people and the organizations that govern this process in the US. The National Residency Matching Program uses the term on its main page, and in all its reports on residents, matching, physicians workforce issues, etc. [2]. As does the AMA, the AOA, etc, etc. Thoughts? Bryan Hopping T 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel and 9/11[edit]

Hey Raymond arritt, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ray-ray has left the building, unfortunately. MastCell Talk 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

advice?[edit]

concerning this?

I'm not sure he's around much any more. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Raymond[edit]

I see you're not around, and don't know what precipitated your departure, but in case you occasionally stop by and read here, I wanted to say I hope you'll be back - you were always a pleasure to work with, and we need people like you on the project. Drop me an email any time. All best Tvoz/talk 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One can hope. I am not so sure it is so likely, knowing what happened.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Raymond arritt/Sandbox[edit]

I've emptied your sandbox for now, since it's getting picked up by template transclusion bots. Feel free to revert once you're back if you still need it. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NLP[edit]

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help[edit]

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting in theory but unworkable. First, it will never become policy because there are too many people here who are bent on promoting nonsense, and too many influential administrators and editors who sympathize with them. Second, Wikipedia's core content policies such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, and the like can be disregarded with impunity. What would be the benefit of having yet another toothless content policy on the books? 129.186.187.11 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Robert M. Carter[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Robert M. Carter. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond hasn't edited that article in the last 8 months, and this account has been entirely inactive for the past 3 months. What in the name of Odin's Beard are you talking about? MastCell Talk 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Public understanding of climate models[edit]

I saw you wondering what public understanding is somewhere else, and thought I'd share this [3] which is the best article I've seen and the source of most of what I know about the topic. I suspect that most people know that or less. Probably much less in some cases. If you have any recommended reading that's accessible on a pop-sci level I'd be interested. Mishlai (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles[edit]

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque[edit]

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Gblock[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Gblock has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-block1. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:GblockIP[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:GblockIP has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-ablock. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Gblock-i[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Gblock-i has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-block3. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On CERUMENTRIC[edit]

Hi Mr. Arritt! Acknowledging that you have point for deleting the entry for CERUMENTRIC, a synth-rock band from Manila due to lack of notability in 2007, would you at least reconsider removing it from the deleted entries list and allowing a new entry to be written for the band? I realize 6,000+ Google results are not enough to justify notability (which I also think is subjective), I have been following the Manila music scene in the Philippines for more than 15 years and could attest that CERUMENTRIC has been a notable act in the Manila indie music scene, has been nominated twice in 2009 and 2010 for Best Dance/Electronic Act in the Asia Pacific Voice Independent Music Awards in Malaysia, and is noted by some music bloggers in Brunei and Japan as one of the leading proponents in the emerging South East Asian electronica movement. I realize my reasons are biased as a local fan of the band, but I will try my best to write a more or less objective entry based on Wikipedia's standards. Thank you so much for your time. :) --Canfried Moses Fibakar (User_talk:Canfried —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Notice of change[edit]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)