Blippy

Welcome!

Hello, Blippy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Motor (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:HoL Hut FHS tweaked.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HoL Hut FHS tweaked.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hands on learning australia

Almost none of the references in this article appear to be independent of this project. All Wikipedia articles need in-depth coverage which is independent from their topics to meet the notability criteria. Can you find more news stories, etc, on this? Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

{{help me}} Amazing how you discover useful things when you read the welcome message fully! I received the notability flag and have been updating the page to address this issue. I believe I have done so now, but am not sure about the correct protocol from here... I've been harrassing Nick-D (well, he may be kind enough to not consider it harrassment) about the matter, but now realise that the "help me" route is perhaps the correct one. Essentially I'm not sure how to go about clearing the tag. Do I 'undo' the tag in the edit section now that I think I've met the criteria, do I request Nick-D to review it, or is there a notability forum somewhere that deals with such things? Thanks in advance for any clarity Blippy (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What notability tag are you referring to? fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Nvm, I got it.

Removing the tag is unneccessary, however if you wish to, you can. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say unnecessary does that suggest that it will go away of its own accord eventually? It's a bit ugly having a tag there, so I'd prefer it wasn't there if it no longer has to be... thanks for your prompt response fahadsadah. Blippy (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it won't, but someone will remove it eventually if you don't. It's better that way. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh poo. I just removed it. I'll put it back. Thanks fahadsadah. Blippy (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no need. I'll remove it again for you. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks fahadsadah - sorry to be a pain. I'm amazed at how quickly people get things done and make such positive contributions. Thanks again. Blippy (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two mass media stories isn't really much to establish notability. Sources from the educaton department can't be used to establish notability as they're not fully independent of the subject of the article. That said, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything as I suspect that more sources will be available for something like this, so good luck with digging up more. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I'll certainly keep looking! Blippy (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Berry Street

A tag has been placed on Berry Street requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That really was a speedy deletion!! I hadn't even had a chance to come back to tidy it up and add additional content. Berry Street is one of the oldest charities on the planet. You seem to have quite an itchy trigger finger there RadioFan!! Is there some way to restore what was previously done so I can continue with my edits??Blippy (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide references to confirm notability and write the article in a properly encyclopedic tone, then you're always free to start a new article. Speedy deletion doesn't necessarily mean that no article can ever exist at the title, only that the particular version of the article doesn't meet our rules. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat - very happy to comply, but I would have thought that a non-offensive article might be granted at least 12 hours before it's zapped! Is there any way to reclaim my previous efforts? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore it to your userspace for you — it'll be at User:Blippy/Berry Street. Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks for that Bearcat, much appreciated. Blippy (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blippy. Thank you.. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ian Stevenson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This is for your information and so you don't accidentally break 3RR. Sorry it is strongly worded, but it's a standard template. Verbal chat 12:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs - KillerChihuahua passed comment on the hostile wording of some of the templates. Thanks for the information - certainly not an edit war though! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reverts don't have to be to the same version - that still counts as edit warring. Cheers, Verbal chat 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh perhaps I don't understand then. Can you spell that out a little more? That was my first revert ever (as far as I'm aware) - I thought I'd been pretty much doing the right thing trying to discuss changes before making them... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you undo any change, that is basically a revert. 3 such is the absolute limit. It does not mean 3 reverts to the same version, and neither is it a right. Self-reverts (where you undo yourself) are usually exempt, unless they're disruptive. Partial reverts can also count... The idea is to stop edit warring from starting. Verbal chat 13:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, so if I add back in part of something that was removed (not using the undo button) on the same article, then that counts as a revert. Is that right? Thanks for the clarification - slooowly getting there :-) Blippy (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, best to propose it on the talk and others will do it if they agree. Verbal chat 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's handy to know. I just went through my revision history and I think I've well and truly blown the 3RR! Woops. Think I'll call it a night!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Insight

Thank you for taking the trouble to participate in the naming debacle concerning Biržai. Hopefully you got a feel for my objections of having "agendas" propagated under the auspices of the "rules". Sorry, but "google hits" are a personal bone of contention of mine and much less meaningful than the undue weight they are given. For a better insight as to where I am coming from, please read my edits and comments at the Trujillo article and its respective talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Dan. Thanks for your feedback. Yes I think I see what you mean - certainly some spurious stuff on that page! I think you're absolutely right that Google is a tool that needs to be used with ones' brain fully engaged! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Birzai/Birze. As an aside, note that the case of Trujillo and the case of this town are completely incomparable and in fact I did spend a good bit of effort analyzing the Google book hits.radek (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks radek. Yes I think you did a very thorough job looking at that material on the Birzai page. I suppose that's the beauty of 3O, it just helps to highlight the good stuff that may have been obscured by other issues. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Verbal chat 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

3O?

Hi. I saw that you took two 3Os off of the list, but it doesn't look like you actually give any opinions on them. Mind if I ask why you took them off, then? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm.... did you read my edit summary? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh - sorry, i think that sounded harsh! What I meant was that I thought I explained the Chinese Characters one in the edit summary - I went to offer a 3O but someone had already done the job. I checked again a while later and it was still on the list so I took it off. I was in the middle of dealing with the Baseball one when you wrote your comment. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's alright. Sorry for sounding like a dick there, I just wasn't sure what was going on. Thanks for the help on 3O, BTW. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs! Sorry I sounded snippy myself. I'm actually enjoying the 3O stuff - it's a great way to learn about several of the policies pretty quickly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:Third opinion has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive? How so... the 3O listing suggested there was a dispute. I saw no evidence of a dispute at all - there were two comments, one from 2007 and the other from the person posting the 3O. I was merely encouraging the editor to have some confidence in their actions. Or perhaps I've miscontrued the nature of their request...? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your edit. My apologies. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of you to acknowledge Leo. Thanks. I'd started to think I'd done the wrong thing! I might just add a clarification on the page in question to make sure I convey what I meant to convey. If you misread it, then there's a good chance I haven't been clear enough. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson

I'm currently taking a look through the history so I can understand what the issues have been. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SV - there's been a bit of edit warring going on, which I'm trying to keep out of now - it seems pretty futile just making changes if you don't bring people on board first. The hard part is trying to get them to engage in a dialogue though! I realise I have entrenched views too, though. Any light you can shed will be very very welcome! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be pleasantly surprised. TTFN. Burberry southsea (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Burberry s., what can I say other than WOW! Spectacular effort! I can honestly say that my faith in WP has been restored, I was very close to chucking the whole thing in if the dominant view of some of the other editors proved to be correct. Incidentally, do you know if we are supposed to do anything else about that sock puppet thing, or will it just go away by itself? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Blippy, it's very kind of you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I only wish I could do more! I've been having a fairly unpleasant WP experience of late, and your involvement, perspective, and contribution have been remarkably heartening. So thank you once again - I'll stop effusing now!  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your last post to the talk page, and refactor appropriately. Verbal chat 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Hi. Thanks for taking this 3rd opinion. I can't get any of the links in your comment work.... Noloop (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you abandoned this? Noloop (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No! I've been keeping an eye on things and thought they seemed to be progressing, have I missed something? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re Reincarnation research, people, and UoV

Hi, are you connected in any way to the people or topics you are contributing to? Your edits are suggestive of a possible conflict of interest, WP:COI, and for transparency you should declare any connection (personal or professional). I have no connection to these people or groups, or any "skeptical" groups either. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure your statementis entirely truthful Verbal - you appear to be associated with at least two cultures entirely inimical to Stevenson's work. But as you asked nicely, I'm very happy to declare my complete lack of connection, association, involvement or knowledge of any person/group that has anything to do with the people and groups you've alluded to. Perhaps you could return the favour and tell me how often you pose such questions to those pushing the "other" views on those pages e.g. KC, DG, LL, PS ? I wonder, if the number of times you have asked them is ~0, whether you would agree this is suggestive of bias on your own part? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If they appear linked to the subject I do. PS has his "possible" CoI documented on his talk. Which bit of my statement do you think appears untruthful? The only groups I'm a member of are some official scientific bodies to do with my work, irrelevant to this area, and the UK civil rights group Liberty. Verbal chat 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

hi Verbal, my reply was less friendly than you deserved, so I'm sorry for that. I feel my efforts have triggered quasi-personal attacks (sock puppet, coi), rather than responses to my arguments. I fear I slipped on a similar banana skin with my response to you. What I was clumsily pointing out is that we all have our blinkers through our convictions, be they scientific, Christian, political etc. It's sometimes hard to step back and see the points being made on their merits. I believe that any perspective can be found reasonable given enough information for us to put on the other person's mocassins, so to speak. Unfortunately this isn't a transitive process, however. Cheers Blippy (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See you in a few weeks. Here's a going away present.

Daily mail UK newspaper finds and cites him as an authority in his field http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-562154/I-died-Jerusalem-1276-says-doctor-underwent-hypnosis-reveal-life.html

On a programme called Friendly Fire as a subject matter expert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLKT5UsKoqM

The UK Channel 5 documentary The Boy Who Lived Before (2006) follows Jim Tucker’s investigation of a case involving Cameron Macaulay http://www.ianlawton.com/rsvideos.htm

That’s three clear appearances in mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic found after only two or three minutes on the internet. Burberry southsea (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah you're a marvel Burberry!! Enjoy your time away. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible edit war on Arthur C. Clarke

Hi Blippy; I was recent changes patrolling when I noticed that you've made two reverts lately on Arthur C. Clarke. I notice that in your latest edit summary you say you'd like to discuss it; that's a good thing. A reminder that if another editor reverts your latest edit, by reverting it you'll have broken the three revert rule. Just a reminder, I'd hate to see someone who's willing to discuss an article get blocked for 3RR. :-) Have a great day. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries GrooveDog, thanks for the friendly reminder. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

english is not my first language.

That is right. English is not my first language. That is cool, I took no offense. I apologize for not expressing myself clearly. My objections concern same sex marriage#Arguments concerning children and the family section. Specifically, the second paragraph which states:
"The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. [103][106][107] Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."
First, in my judgment, no scientific research is concerned with parental fitness issues of any kind. Therefore, wording the sentence like this sounds awkward.
Second, even though the social science research quoted here did not document any relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment, it did not prove that no relationship exists.
My edit would phrase the sentence the manner in which it is phrased in the research itself
from:
"The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. [103][106][107] Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."
To:
"There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian and gay parents are less fit or capable than heterosexual parents. [103][106][107] Research has not documented any relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."
gorillasapiens (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tucker

On the Tucker page I've tried to move things on. I addressed the concerns about book promotions with multiple media sources and then the argument immediately changed into a debate about whether Tucker's research, which is clearly conducted within academia, is academic enough to count as academic for mighty Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't see any point in chasing wild geese anymore and have requested that since notability cannot be agreed upon that we take the next steps and move to delete, merge or keep. Hope you don't mind me trying to move things forward in this way.Noirtist (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about from me Noirtist, I love your work and enjoy collaborating with you. I was going to call for a 3O to help settle it, but your approach is good. I'm losing faith that we aren't dealing with some trollish behaviour, so it's nice to have your positive input. Cheers Blippy (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I put in a 3O request anyway - they seem to attract fairly neutral editors from what I've seen so far. It might help in a similar way to SlimVirgin's appearance on the Stevenson page - although unlikely to be as prolific!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with Tucker now. I really can't be bothered to argue about whether research conducted within academia is academic! It's clear that this is just about having the tag as a means of diminishing the man on wiki. Bit sad really, but it's not the worst thing in the world. I suspect that the article will sit there as is because there is no real possibility of deletion given what has been set by precedent. Noirtist (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something really funny about the tag. The article currently has 18 lines of text and 18 references, which makes it quite possibly, line for line, the best referenced article in the whole of Wikipedia. And yet, the tag says more are needed. Perhaps one after every word. Compare for example, the article on the finest of all books The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience!!!Noirtist (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can only dream of matching such lofty standards of sources and referencing. [1] Follow reference 6 (the only one I looked at), it doesn't even support the claim. Noirtist (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a marvel Noirtist! It's a little depressing to see how prevalent skeptic fanboyism is around here - more genuine skeptics like Clarke and Sagan were at least open minded enough to demonstrate that real skepticism is an overarching mindset, not a pro-science cult. What interests me is when you have purported scientists on here, who are professed Christians, effectively trolling reincarnation pages. Which of their incompatible beliefs is feeling more threatened I wonder?? Anyway, good on you Noirtist, you're a terrific editor. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, probably best not to dwell too long on motivations and the like.Noirtist (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Just a passing observation - I'm not even sure such people exist, do they?? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, could you please keep your comments about edits and not about editors, even here. It is almost always improper and against multiple policies (except in a few cases, such as SPA/SPI/COI/RFC/U/etc, when done politely). It'll look better if you always try to be civil, and it just isn't very nice and doesn't look good. I've got to say I am actually a bit shocked and disappointed by your edit above. Please don't do that again. Verbal chat 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O

The third opinion should only be used for disagreements between two editors. Multiple editors are involved at Jim Tucker, and there is already an ongoing RfC. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right: "The third opinion should only be used for disagreements between two editors." Please stop intruding. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marbehraglaim‎‎ . Thank you.

Not sure about you being a puppet, but taking no chances. ► RATEL ◄ 05:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do not think he is a sockpuppet why report him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratel seems to have removed you from the sockpuppet investigation. He still claims that I am a sockpuppet - and also a cockroach, a mentally-disturbed psychopath and so on. I have reported him to ANI, but knowing wikipedia nothing will come out of it so I will probably stop editing here. Not worth the effort if one has to deal with editors such as Ratel. Pantherskin (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ratel has gotten overly protective about the Dahl page and seems to have had an ongoing issue with some other editors. So I don't think Ratel is in a particularly happy place at the moment, and may not have the perspective that would help to keep things on a more civil and calmer tone. I'm going to try and leave Ratel alone for a bit to see if things improve. I certainly wouldn't rely on the WP processes for fixing things, and I also wouldn't let Ratel's bad mood put you off from editing. It seems that a thick skin is the single most useful thing to have around WP :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

see this [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summary is dishonest. I have undone no "good faith" edits without discussion. The fact that you and N keep opening new discussions on the same or similar material is dishonest, and subverting the article on the way. Verbal chat 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dishonest" is rather harsh Verbal. You undid over 2.5 hours of editing by N without so much as a "how's your father"!! Hardly a constructive approach. You then redid your reversion after merely posting accusations of misrepresentation, silliness, SPA'ing and POV pushing. That does not constitute a discussion seeking consensus, it's a bit more like a rant. All of N's edits were done in good faith and I think it is disrespectful to revert them in such an undignified manner. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be disrespectful (which I dispute, if you are so sensitive then wikipedia might not be the place for you), but it was correct. Verbal chat 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sensitivity, it's a matter of dealing with people in an appropriate manner. Just because you think something is correct does not make it so. That's why WP operates on 'consensus', not on 'what X thinks is correct'. I believe mutual respect is what we need if we're going to avoid the edit tennis that has characterised the Stevenson page. We're all looking to provide a good article, I encourage you to consider my suggestions along those lines on the talk page there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going on the sources and not giving undue weight or misrepresenting Stevenson's support in the scientific community. If N stops his POV editing, and edits other articles, then I will stop considering him an SPA and POV pusher. Verbal chat 10:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to going on the sources, nor to not misrepresenting his support amongst scientists. But we can surely discuss his work within the context of it being marginal, and in terms of it being an ATF, without then having to be extra pernickety about every adjective and modifier! Given it's a biography it is quite reasonable to discuss his work and its reception without being at risk of misleading anyone about its acceptance. Do you seriously believe that he was doing something other than trying to provide an ATF? I just think that if we provide the appropriate context for the reader we can then go on an deal with the details in a less tortured way. Incidentally, N has been active on other pages besides Stevenson, but even if s/he hasn't been, at least s/he is not making the kind of crass edits more often associated with SPA's. If this were the reincarnation page then I think you would be on firmer ground, but in a biography I think it is important to give the reader a good understanding of the person, their work, and their context. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to misrepresent Stevenson's support, and don't want to be pernickety, then why don't you support the addition of "small". Verbal chat 10:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it is a misguided battle. I think that instead of lacing the article with disputed language we should just set the scene for the reader "All that follows pertains to Stevenson's work which to date has not gain wide support in the scientific community". Then we just trot out whatever best describes his work, including the valid support that he gained, the valid critcisms, any valid responses to the criticisms, any valid responses to those responses. I don't think we should be obsessing over whether readers are going to be mislead one way or another, but rather present them with the salient points and get out of the way. There may be other disclaimers you or others would want to put in at the start of the relevant section, but beyond that I don't think it's productive to treat every sentence as if it might mislead. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. On the contrary, I think we should strive to be accurate. Verbal chat 10:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If accuracy is your only guide, then why do you endorse the pseudoscience tag when only one academic source states it and seven state the opposite? Also, I'm not sure what the 'small' refers to specifically - I tuned out when you guys started getting so fussy. Oh, and what about ATF? If you don't agree with that, then what do you believe is the accurate description? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just saw the 'small' bizzo. Small, three, a number, blah blah - again I think it's obsessing over fairly minor stuff which I think in symptomatic of more fundamental misunderstandings between those of us editing. I fail to see how either is inaccurate, but if we're going to start putting such labels before every statement it's going to become pretty tedious for the reader. Again, I think a rider statement would be a better way of handling such things. I also think that ATF would provide a much more accurate and productive framework to work within. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Trolling

Courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolls_of_Anti-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoloopAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock/Meat puppetry

Before filing an SPI I would ask you and your meat/sock puppet to disengage, and for you to only use one account or not engage in further tandem meatpuppetry. If you can do this then there will be no need to file an SPI. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're funny :-) ...and a little paranoid! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several other accounts that also seem to be linked to you both. Can you please confirm you have no links to Jim Tucker or his research groups? (per WP:COI). Thanks, Verbal chat 10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Linked to whom, and in what way? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

N, as you know, and Burbury Southsea. There are a few other possibilities I would probably raise in a new SPI too, but I don't think it's fair to mention them without giving you a chance to stop editing in this way and before I've gathered evidence. I notice that you didn't answer the question. I'll sate it again, and add another. 1, Do you use any other accounts (even approved alternate accounts)? and 2, are you connected with Jim Tucker, his department, or members or students of his department or their families? Verbal chat 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it giving me "a chance to chance to stop editing in this way" if you don't specify the way in which you think I am editing? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing in this way = multiple accounts and/or meatpuppetry. Hopefully this has now stopped. However, I notice you have failed to answer the questions again. Shall I assume the answers are yes and yes? Verbal chat 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts? You seem to have only nominated two - whereas multiple implies more than this; it's more common to say 'two' or 'a couple'. Did you only mean two? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned three, and I have two more in mind. You may or may not be connected to the others, but there is enough evidence to warrant a checkuser I feel, and to justify meatpuppetry should that be inconclusve. As you haven't contested, I take it that you agree with my answers to the questions. Verbal chat 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You have mentioned two, one of which doesn't appear to have been active for multiple weeks. That leaves one. You say two more? Which are these? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Your recent edits to Sense About Science could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Verbal chat 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're getting sillier and sillier Verbal. If you have a reference that verifies that the person concerned endorses that group then use it - otherwise you are potentially committing libel by reinserting that statement. That's not a threat, that's a statement of fact. Stick to the facts, avoid scratching your possible COI itches, and all should be well. I would also encourage a few deep breaths, and maybe staying away from pages I edit since you don't seem to be coping that well at the moment. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to speak to a lawyer or read our article on libel. I have stayed away from pages you edit that are not already on my watchlist (although I notice I did just edit AC Clark, but not concerning your dispute). The warning is to make you aware of the rules, you should be very careful using legal terms on WP - even incorrectly. Feel free not to edit pages I have edited, I would rather disengage from you. Verbal chat 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then do so. Your persistent, unjustified, reverts of my edits in unhelpful, and not borne out by views of other editors who disagree with your blanket dismissals. I think you are making thing needlessly personal and it is clouding your judgement. This is not a good thing for WP and is squandering your talents. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then do what? It's up to you, I'm afraid. Either make good edits, respond in good faith to requests and challenges, or disengage from articles I was previously active on. I'd be obliged if you could answer the questions above, or confirm my answers. Verbal chat 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused. You're the one who reverts my edits without justification. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only those edits without justification. Verbal chat 09:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you open to a trucesque compromise? Blippy (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second the request that you refrain from using the term or implication of libel in reference to your fellow editors. As linked above, this is covered by our No legal threats policy. On the other hand, Wikipedia is very serious in regards to sourcing for statements about people, as described in the Biographies of living persons policy. On the third hand, the Goldacre statement is hardly incredible; I am still sorting through that little revert war last night (my time; incidentally, try not to do that - we have Talk:Sense About Science for a reason), but at one point that statement in fact was sourced; I will check the history to see to where it has wandered. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, please try to remember to cover all aspects of each edit in your edit summary. This one omitted to mention that it also reverted a recent edit of Verbal. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have miscontrued the sequence of events 2/0, I did not accuse anyone of committing libel. It is quite clear that describing someone as supporting a political group which they do not support is potentially defamatory. Reinserting unsourced information to this effect was unhelpful, hence the reminder in the subsequent edit summary that there were potential legal issues to bear in mind and that it is better to err on the side of caution until appropriate refs are available. Politics is ugly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time try this unsourced information appears to be in violation of our Biographies of living persons policy rather than stating Then find it, otherwise you may be committing liable. The former formulation of essentially the same point urges involved editors to work together within the framework of policy without bringing in the NLT policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope there isn't a next time :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood 2/0, he didn't accuse you of making a legal threat (and neither did I). He clearly requested that you "refrain from using the term or implication of libel in reference to your fellow editors". Verbalchat 09:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read the tag you placed here - and which you seem unwilling to remove. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression" Verbal chat 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Warning: Making legal threats on Sense About Science." Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, might be worth mentioning the disparity on the twinkle page (the ES is automatic). I'd prefer "possible" or "Warning: WP:NLT policy with regard to ...." or something. Verbal chat 11:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science

Please justify your recent edits or they will likely be reverted; see the talk page. Verbal chat 08:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting you didn't see my comments prior to my edit, nor my edit summary? I also thought you were wanting to disengage? You seem to be doing a poor job. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you stop editing pages where I was already active then I will not "engage" on pages you are active and I am not. What I am attempting to get you to do is justify your edits. This is called discussion, and I have given my reasons why your edit appears unjustified on the talk page. Have you addressed the COI and sock/meat puppetry question above? Verbal chat 08:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a different idea of discussion to me. I rather thought it was where we both justify our edits. Re: COI, we can talk about yours later, but note that you are the one who departed from the conversation above about your accusations. You also did not respond to my olive branches. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The only groups I am connected with are the CNRS, the EPSRC, and a few other academic groups. I was also a member of Liberty while I lived in the UK. I have no CoI with the topics I edit, although I do own Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. As I have told you before. Please feel free to answer the questions above. As to olive branches, please give details of your offer. Verbal chat 09:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well unless I'm much mistaken, you are participating in SAS activism and consistently blocking my efforts to remove POV from the SAS page. That's COI. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Is this the olive branch you were on about? Verbal chat 10:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. A reasonable assumption given the pro-SAS banner on your talk page. That would constitute a mild form of SAS activism, but I'm willing to take your word for it. The olive branches consisted of the opportunity to remove the legal tag (which I suggest was placed based on a misunderstanding of my intent and actions), and the offer of negotiating a compromise regarding our editing interactions. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have struck the warning, as it's message seems to have sunk in from what you wrote above - basically avoid legal terms like slander, libel, defamation, etc, when describing others edits. The banner is in support of the campaign to clear the good name of Simon Singh, and not the SaS generally. I've only looked at that campaign and the homeopathy one, and I have no issue with their activities in either. Verbal chat 10:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - although I take it that you have no interest in the placatory element of removing the tag; you merely feel that I have learned my lesson. Nevertheless I have another cheek that I am still willing to offer. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I have reported you for editwarring here. Wikipedia:Edit war may be of use. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Until I linked out the diffs I also did not think you had violated the letter of 3RR, and had intended to report you for regular edit warring. I suspect that they occurred on different days for you even though only a little under 16 hours elapsed between the first and fifth reverts I list as having been performed on the 21st (my time zone). This is less than 24 hours, however, and so still a technical violation. If you will commit to ceasing to edit war on that page, I have no problems withdrawing that report on the principle that the least action which accomplishes an effect is generally best. Please note again that edit warring is (and has been) more than simply three reverts in a 24 hour period. You are active on the talkpage, but keep getting reverted by multiple editors at the article - just stick with the method which works.

I am about to sign off for the night, but feel free to remove the report while linking this section in your edit summary ... and then contribute productively at talk. Several of your suggestions seem to have stuck; when you provide concrete suggestions and reliable sources, most editors are not unreasonable. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for the 24 hour bizzo - and fully accept the technical violation, even though it was unintended. I don't wish to edit war, I merely wish for the tag to reflect the state of the page, which is that there is an active disagreement about it's NPOV. I would suggest that if I can't win people over on something as basic as that then the other issues stand little chance of being resolved. I believe the POV tag helps to focus all editors on working to reach a neutral article, whereas it's absence allows editors to simply take terms in reverting my efforts at obtaining neutral language - in other words, it allows a certain sloppiness toward NPOV and makes me look like an edit warrior instead of someone wanting to improve the article from the WP perspective if not the SAS perspective. And I should point out that I am NOT anti-SAS. I think a neutral article does far more for SAS than does a puff piece. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring on Sense About Science. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert F. Almeder

The article Robert F. Almeder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable academic

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look at Jim Tucker article which you, I believe, have edited many a time. I think it does meet all demands that a person needs to be biographed on Wiki. What you think ? I removed the notability tag but it was prompotly replaced

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jim Tucker. 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/Jim Tucker (2nd 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) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't get done again for edit warring

Please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, BRD isn't edit warring. But thanks for the friendly heads up!

edit warring

You seem intent on edit warring to attempt to include content that is not well sourced. While published in generally reliable sources, the content you wish to include is from opinion pieces, by Sheldrake partisans in which they merely quote Sheldrake's side of a conversation that he says took place with Dawkins. that is NOT reliably sourced. In addition, the essence of the whole matter is Sheldrake wanted to talk about X on Dawkins show and Dawkins said No, I dont want to talk about X on my show. There is nothing there to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience sanctions notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Should I know what this is supposed to mean? Is there an arbitration underway that I'm supposed to be involved with?? What, if anything, am I supposed to do in light of this notice??? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The notice means that you have now been put on alert that the article is under special conditions and if you act inappropriately and /or disruptively, administrators have been granted leave to take expedited action to limit or eliminate future disruptions.

It means essentially, make sure you are being a good boy or you will have to go sit in a corner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That might prove difficult ;-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello Blippy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to BlackLight Power has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe, however, there are lines through many of the recent edits on the history page, so it is impossible for me to see what is being referred to. Can you provide me with more info please? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The text starting with "After studying the process" was copied from [3]. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And you need to respond at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs, I can't see any of those edits. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't see the copyvio content, you can see where Drmies reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Article on Harvard CfA replication of BLP experiment

Hi Blippy,

I'm glad to see you are continuing to contribute to the BLP page. I found this abstract interesting and wondered if you had seen it. It describes a study done at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics in which the researcher (not BLP, but apparently under contract from BLP) validated some of the important hydrino-related claims. No idea whether Plasma Physics is considered a reputable journal or whether it would be deemed acceptable by the editing consensus at the BLP talk page. However, I thought you might find it interesting. Cheers.

Plasma Physics article

Ronnotel (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ronnotel, I hadn't seen that paper. It looks quite interesting. I'm starting to think that the BLP article might benefit from a section that gives an overview of the kind of research that has been undertaken, I don't think a new reader would come away with an appreciation for the serious efforts that have been made to date. I anticipate lots of howling about primary sources etc., so I'll have to mull this over a bit. Ideally a secondary source would provide a segue into this describing all this material. Anyway, thank again for the heads up - it's nice to see not everyone interested in the BLP article is hostile :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring at Blacklight Power

Near as I can tell, you've re-added essentially the same text to Blacklight Power ([4], [5], [6], [7]) over the last four days, reverting four different editors who disagree with the appropriateness of the content.

Your should probably take this opportunity to review WP:Edit warring before you consider reverting – or reinserting substantially similar material – again. Administrators tend to look askance at persistent, slow-motion edit warring like you're engaged in; if you persist, you are likely to find yourself blocked temporarily or even banned from editing on this topic altogether. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if editors engaged in discussions on the talk page rather than simply reverting...? I notice you haven't responded to my rebuttal of your own objections. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't actually rebut my objection, nor do I have anything to add to the comments made by other editors. Simply being the last person to comment in a discussion – particularly if you're just repeating things said before – doesn't automatically make your comment the new 'consensus'. Adding a POV tag to the article because you couldn't get your way through edit warring isn't helpful, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, if you don't think I had anything of merit to say in responding to your criticisms, and couldn't even be bothered saying that much on the talk page, then I can't see how we can engage in a fruitful conversation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you reinstate this material again without clear agreement on the talk page I shall certainly report you and I'd be surprised if you aren't blocked. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's because you think I am a disruptive editor who is just stirring up trouble or some kind of BLP shill? I guess the old truism is true, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail... :-) Evidently some people prefer to play the WP game as a sad version of gang warfare rather than as an intellectually stimulating collaborative pursuit. Fair enough. Sad though. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement request

Because of your unfortunate, persistent, disruptive editing at Blacklight Power, I have requested Arbitration Enforcement action against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Blippy. You are welcome to make a statement in your own defense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I take it from this that you have decided not to engage in a discussion? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from all fringe and pseudoscience-related topics (including Blacklight Power) on all pages of Wikipedia for a period of 6 months.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at BlackLight Power

Your recent editing history at BlackLight Power shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to spell out specifically what makes you think I am edit warring? Thanks. Blippy (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A simple way to understand it is that edit warring is the repeated restoration, addition, or deletion of content when those actions are disputed by other editors. It really makes little difference whether you are right or not, because we try to edit collaboratively. Therefore, to avoid a disagreeable edit war, we use the BRD process to stop such efforts in their tracks and force discussion to occur. The discussion should continue on the article's talk page, without any disputed edits, until a resolution of the dispute has been reached. 3rr is a bright line, but one can be blocked for even a single such edit when it's obvious one isn't respecting others wishes to discuss the matter first. Many an editor who was 10000% right has been blocked and even banned for failing in this matter. We simply can't use force to edit articles. That never works. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my request and thought I asked you to explain your understanding of edit warring to me. No. I asked what specifically makes you think that I am edit warring. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My explanation describes what you were doing. You restored your additions which were deleted by others. You need to check the edit history before making edits. If your edit has been rejected, even if it happened several days ago, unless you have discussed the matter and gotten permission to restore that edit, you are edit warring if you restore it. That's what you did. You had not reached any form of consensus on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"gotten permission"!!??!! What a strange sense of WP:OWNership you seem to display here. If what you say is true then you'll have no difficulty providing diffs of what you claim. What deleted addition did I restore exactly? And how exactly are your ad hominem accusations on the talk page helping to build consensus? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! You've been around here long enough to understand this, if you want to, but you apparently don't want to. Your edits have been reverted. Those are the ones I'm talking about. There is no "ownership" issue here, just some good advice. When other editors stop reverting your edits, they are "permitting" you to add content. It's really very simple. Just follow BRD by starting a discussion about the specific edit, and be VERY specific. If you can convince other editors, or reach a compromise, then all's well.

BTW, you never answered my question: "What is your position at BLP?" They need an official presence on the talk page. If they have good motives, they will want to collaboratively ensure accurate content without resorting to legal threats and intimidation. The talk page can be used for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is your exasperated sigh an attempt to avoid answering my question? Which of my edits SPECIFICALLY are evidence of edit warring? If you can't answer this then be kind enough to strike out your warning above. Perhaps then we can start to engage in a collaborative fashion with a better understanding of each other, and inject a bit of good will to further discussions. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned

Please see User talk:Callanecc#User:Blippy at BlackLight Power. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your position at Blacklight Power

Blippy, are you associated in a monetary manner with Blacklight Power, Inc.? I.e. employeed, consulting, representing, etc. If so, what is your position? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, given the nature of the article it is vital that there be transparency around any potential WP:COI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can both start by declaring your potential COI's? Where do you both work? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See my User page: it's all linked there. Now: your turn. (To be clear, there is no need for you to "out" yourself to the extent I have, but is would be helpful to state whether you do, or do not, have any real life connection of any kind to BLP.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no connection to any existing or potential power producer nor lab associated with such. No connection, to my knowledge, to any group that would benefit in any way with the outcome of BLP's success. Your turn, please? Jim1138 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, ditto to what? - that's a bit oblique. For the avoidance of doubt, could you please confirm that you have no real-life connection to BLP. I will then remove the "connected contribution" template that names you on the BLP Talk page, accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You can safely remove the template. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I know I can, when you write something that explicitly confirms you have no real-life connection to BLP. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it might look to an observer that you are avoiding stating your position clearly. How hard can it be to write (to use the template's terminology) "I am not personally or professionally connected to the topics covered in the BLP article", and then sign it. This is taking more time than it should. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, done. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Where? On a piece of paper sitting on your desk, perhaps? Jim1138 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, why are you replying so evasively? It makes a poor impression. How hard can it be to make a straightforward statement? Bishonen | talk 20:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Blippy, as you appear to not have answered the questions. So, I replaced the COI / Blippy on the BLP talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Blippy's responses here are enough to close this conversation and remove the tag. Fundamentally a self-declaration of COI or lack-of-COI by a pseudonymous editor isn't worth the disk space it's stored on or the energy spent in pursuit of getting the declaration phrased in a particular way. Maybe the person making the declaration is lying? Maybe not? You'll never know. Undeclared editing by connected editors (not saying it's happening here) is simply a soft spot in Wikipedia's open editing model. Zad68 23:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for AGF Zad. In order to satisfy those who are afflicted with overly suspicious minds, I have no connection - real or imagined, past or present - to BLP or any of it's subsiduaries, individuals, partners, pets, or polyps. I am not even in the same hemisphere as BLP and have nothing more than an open mind toward them. For all I know hydrinos are complete bullshit and BLP an elaborate and superbly executed scam. But that is not the impression I have formed in the time I have paid attention to the matter, and I am genuinely surprised that there is such vehemence surrounding the issue by so many seemingly reasonable and intelligent people. I have no desire to create dramas or to puff up any BLP claims beyond anything warranted by WP:RS's, but I also think that the BLP article as it stands does an injustice to anyone using it as their only source of information on BLP. In theory we'll all know the truth of the matter before the end of the year, but that is no justification to not try and raise the quality of the article. On the other hand, if that isn't what the WP project is all about then by all means ban me and I'll take the hint and go away forever. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification Blippy. I obviously disagree with you about the article quality, but as you say if in a year's time Mills is proved correct this will hardly matter, as mankind will enjoy perhaps the biggest single breakthrough in its history and we all be voyaging excitedly together into a fantastic future. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks Alexbrn. I am not sufficiently naive to do more than marvel at the possibilities, but as you say, we may indeed have a fantastic future if BLP has any truth to it. Meanwhile, perhaps we can persuade one another of a version of the article we are both satisfied with  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this wonder device will beat Mills to it: Energy Catalyzer. Are you unhappy with that article too? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic - but if this is true "no independent tests have been made, and no peer-reviewed tests have been published" then I wouldn't bother investigating the matter any further. It certainly isn't true of the BLP process however... would you agree? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many similarities. There is no reliable verification of any of BLP's energy generation claims. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn more, but on the surface, however many similarities there are - and assuming the article is accurate - it would seem that the quote I posted alludes to a fundamental and vital difference. Mills and co. have published dozens (over 100?) peer reviewed journal articles relating to tests they have performed. They also claim independent validation of their work - as do the authors of the reports BLP published - all of whom appear to be eminently qualified and legitimate. Is this true of the Energy Catalyzer? And do you agree this is a significant difference? I am not suggesting that BLP's publishing of validation reports satisfies WP:RS, I am merely saying that there is primae facie evidence of genuine openness to validation. I'm actually wondering if the statements of the various validators in the YouTube videos would constitute a WP:RS for their comments, but I will have to mull that over further. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a significant difference; just a different approach to PR by the companies. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So just to be clear, are you saying that peer reviewed journal articles are equivalent to advertisments? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No. But like advertisements they are not "reliable verification" of BLP's claims - which is the point. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking past each other here. I see two distinct parts to what I was saying. 1) peer-reviewed tests being published, and 2) independent tests being performed. To me you seem to be conflating the two. I agree that 1)'s are not reliable verifications, but I wasn't suggesting they are. They are reports of experiments that have satisfied the standards set by the experts in the field. This is not about independent verification of the tests, but rather about independent verification of the standards met in performing and reporting on those tests. Can we agree on that much, so far? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What source is there for the "independent verification of the standards met in performing and reporting on those tests"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, you're shifting the goal posts a bit there - or I may be misreading you. We're discussing the difference between BLP and Energy Catalyzer. I argued that the two crucial differences I could spot immediately were of type 1) and 2) - outlined above. I am not advocating a source in the WP:RS sense, if that is what your question implies. I am saying that the very process of being published in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrates that the experts in the field are satisfied with the quality etc. of tests reported on. So in that sense, the source - or evidence that this is the case - is the journals themselves, because otherwise they wouldn't have published the articles. I am assuming that there are no peer-reviewed articles published about the EC, no? I am saying that is a dramatic difference right there. Do you disagree? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're at talking odds. I disagree there is any "crucial" difference; just different kinds of unconvincing material for each company. The only kind of "crucial" difference would be if one of them had good evidence of working. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All we have is BLP's word on the matter. If they were producing 'hydrinos', they could ship a sample to an independent lab who could likely detect a new form of hydrogen. A mass spec can easily detect minute quantities even count molecules, so only a tiny sample would be needed. That would 'prove' they had something without releasing any details on their secret process. As hydrogen atoms would release a huge amount of energy to become hydrinos, they should be quite stable chemically. I am sure that this would have occurred to them as the new hydrogen species would be of enormous interest to chemists. I would imagine that small samples of hydrinos would sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, why hasn't this happened? Jim1138 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

forgive my interruption, but I believe Mills' response would be that he did submit samples for evaluation many years ago but that the positive results were ignored. The paper was posted on the website for many years but recently came down during a reorg. Ronnotel (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronnetel:, BLP has done many experiments, presumably generating quantities of hydrinos. There are many, many labs that would love to get ahold of a unique substance. Look at the polywater phenomenon, the cold fusion craze, or many other discoveries. Hydrinos would generate similar excitement. load up a few hundred bottles (there must be lots of hydrinos, right?) and ship it out to labs that have the equipment to do an analysis. At least one is bound to discover its unusual properties, contact their peers, and BLP's stock goes ballistic. Unless of course hydrinos don't exist. Jim1138 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable question. I've found that Mills is responsive to pretty much any polite request. If you are truly curious about this supposed anomaly then perhaps you can ask him, in the interest of science. He is active at the Society for Classical Physics forum. Pretty much promise that you will get a meaningful response. I'd be interested to hear any explanation why his Raman spectography results can't be done at a different lab. Ronnotel (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you seem to be ducking the issue (as you are Jim1138) - or else have an exceptionally peculiar view of the peer-reviewed process. No company can simply pay for peer-reviewed articles to be published on a topic of their choosing, that's the whole point of peer-review, only articles deemed suitable by experts in the field get through. What you describe is the view that there is no difference whatsoever between a company that has passed peer-review and one that has not. How can you justify such an extraordinary claim? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, I'm ducking the issue? Might want to look over the rest of this thread. Jim1138 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting a research article published in a "peer-reviewed journal" doesn't mean the results are "right". Much (maybe most) published research is later discounted in secondary sources because of problems like methodological weakness, bias, etc. A company does not "pass peer-review"; papers do. If Wikipedia took the position that peer-review validated research it would have said that autism is (or might be) caused by the MMR vaccine; while in fact (as secondary sources later found) this was erroneous, and Andrew Wakefield was exposed for producing fraudulent research. It is for that type of reason Wikipedia (like any rational person) should not assume that "peer review" validates anything much - especially for extaordinary claims. That's just common sense.

You keep mentioning "crucial" distinctions. Well, for me, the crux is the question of whether there is high-quality independent confirmation of the claims made. Anything that falls short of "yes", whatever it may be (peer-reviewe, news interest, expert endorsement, funding, yadda yadda) means the same thing - the answer is "no". Still, maybe next year ... ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear determined to try and confuse this discussion with WP policy. I have been speaking about your claim that BLP is no different to EC. I have said that a person (natural or otherwise) who produces articles on a topic that repeatedly pass peer review, and another person who is incapable of producing such material are crucially different from each other. You are saying that is not the case - or if not saying that explicitly, avoiding saying that by sliding into different issues. So, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that you believe that claims made by X supported by multiple peer-reviewed articles ARE QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL to the claims made by Y who has failed to produce any peer-reviewed support for their work? Once we settle your position on that question we can tackle the second part about independent validation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not "QUALITATIVELY IDENTICAL" but amounting to the same thing: unconvincing (both by my standards and Wikipedia's). As I said before there is no "crucial" difference between them, just different kinds of unconvicing material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've lost me. How can they be qualitatively different and yet have no crucial differences? Can you give me some sort of example of such a phenomenon (not article related) that will help me better understand your position? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

One definition of crucial is "decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something"; in the context of being successfully convincing there is no "decisive" difference between these outfits, despite taking different approaches (Mills can point to his papers; Rossi to his interest from NASA, etc.). Catholicism is qualitatively different from (say) scientology; but there is no "crucial" difference between the two in considering their veracity. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's helpful. So let me pose a little thought experiment to tease it out a bit. Imagine I am dying from a rare and poorly understood disease. Lets say there are only four treatments available to me, and I only have time enough to choose one: i) Take a pill concocted by a chap who has spent a lot of time performing experiments with it and writing 100 peer-reviewed articles about these experiments. ii) Take a pill concocted by a chap who has spent a lot of time performing experiments but never managed to get any articles about these experiments published in peer-reviewed journals. iii) Pray to Xenu iv) Pray to the Pope's God. I come to you for advice. Which do you suggest I choose? Is there no crucial difference between them so I might as well just toss a coin? Cheers,Blippy (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the above; I'd enjoy what time I had left instead. If absolutely forced though, maybe (ii) since it's a complete unknown, whereas (i) looks dubious, since there are 100 "articles" on it and still no traction from mainstream medicine (I assume), which is a kind of evidence against. (BTW are you aware there is a large amount of peer-reviewed material, from many different authors, on the medical effectiveness of intercessory prayer? I'm guessing that's what you'd opt for then!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Well, let's put to one side your seeming disregard for my health :-) Let me take a slightly different tack. Which of those four would you say were playing the science game? Chap i), chap ii), Tom Cruise, or Pope Francis? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what "game" would be being played; but all of them at one time or another could have attempted to use science (or actually used science) - whether they were truly doing so would need some kind of independent verification. It seems pretty clear, for example, that E-meters - despite their scientific trappings - have about as much accepted scientific validity as ... well, hydrinos! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So I've thrown you by the use of the word 'game'?? Or are you unwilling to acknowledge that publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a hallmark of undertaking science? Can you point me to the peer reviewed articles in respected journals on E-meters? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, a hallmark of "undertaking science" is that stuff is published in scientific journals alright; the reverse is not necessarily true. The question at hand is not whether hyrdinos (or E-Meters or homeopathy) are "scentific" or not ... FWIW I'd say all of them are (somewhere in the pseudoscience branch of science). That doesn't impress me. As I've said before there is an entire peer-reviewed journal dedicated to homeopathy: it's still bunk, no matter how much science is done around it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, that you seem to think that one of those is science suggests that you do not understand what science is. Jim1138 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronnetel: (from above) Mills is definitely not dumb. That he hasn't distributed hydrino samples is very telling. Jim1138 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You do struggle to stick to the issue Alexbrn!! Your armchair assessment of homeopathy is not what matters here - are there any peer reviewed articles in reputable physics journals on either EC or E-Meters?? FWIW there is no such thing as a pseudoscience branch of science. Pseudoscience is a derogatory term used to dismiss those who propose theories/explanations which seem to have a scientific credibility and explanatory power but which are not actually testable. It is pretty obvious that the hydrino theory is testable since there are over 100 published accounts of such tests. This is what the scientific project is - not sitting around deciding which things you think sound silly and which you don't - that is a pseudoscientific approach. And as for Jim1138 *killer punch* that they wont provide materials for others to test - you're wrong. Look at the credentials and reports of the independent validators and you will see that they have already done what you propose, and more. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing at Talk:Blacklight Power

Hi Blippy, regarding your editing at Talk:BlackLight_Power: You probably don't need reminding, but here it is--You were topic-banned for six months from pseudoscience content, including BlackLight Power claims, per this AE discussion, largely due to your editing at that article. Instead of working in other areas, you simply left Wikipedia for the entirety of the topic ban, and came right back to the same article with the same editing angle, starting off with the re-introduction to the article of content similar to what you were edit-warring over before. Because of this history, you are on the thinnest WP:ARBPS enforcement ice there.

I think I've been more than fair to you and have given you sufficient opportunity to demonstrate this is an area you can return to. I'm not making any comment regarding your view on the content, but rather your behavior needs to be exemplary if you'd like to stay engaged in the conversation there. I'm very concerned regarding the personal references to editors in your your recent comments, and what appears to be the re-emergence of tendentious editing, in that you are continuing to repeat arguments for content changes when, after a long period of discussion, there is no consensus emerging for them. If you are still interested in pursuing them, may I suggest that you use the dispute resolution pathways to drive a decision on your content change suggestions to a resolution, and then abide by that resolution, no matter which way it turns out. Continuing down the path you are on at the article Talk page will not work out well. Zad68 13:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair cop Zad. I can see how I have strayed from continuing to simply point out the evidence and started to direct attention to some of the idiosyncratic responses more directly than is perhaps helpful, so thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure which of the dispute resolution pathways is best to pursue, I would welcome your advice in this regard - I've stuck mainly to trying to persuade people where possible on the talk page, and have little experience with such matters. As an uninvolved viewer of the issues I would welcome your perspective, particularly about the journal editorial issue, and whether there is some potential discrepancy in how this source is being used compared to the various blog sources - or do I have the wrong end of the stick? I'm not wanting to involve you in the detail, more to get a kind of third opinion view of whether I'm misreading the situation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blippy, sorry my attention has been on other things for the past few days. My thoughts on this are that because you've returned to the topic area, you're basically stating that you don't need help: If you thought you needed help in how to handle a contentious content dispute, you'd gain that experience in another topic area--that was the point of the topic ban, and you declined the opportunity develop that experience editing in other areas during the ban. So, I'm not inclined to guide you in this topic area, as I might have been had you asked me for advice while editing in another area. With that, I see that you've started a DRN discussion, which in my view was an appropriate thing to do. Zad68 15:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Zad. I'm not sure your conclusions are necessarily sound, but that is no matter, I appreciate you taking the time to help - and had you not suggested the DRN in the first place, I wouldn't have known how else to proceed. I find WP can be dangerously addictive, so I limit my involvement intentionally. This may slow my learning, but it preserves my sanity ;-) Thanks again. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68 - Thanks for helping to monitor the Blacklight Power page. It's sorely in need of assistance from uninvolved admins. However, I thought this comment from the dispute resolution moderator was relevant to your concerns regarding Blippy. I wanted to make sure you were aware that a dispute resolution was underway, and that at least one other uninvolved editor has found that some of Blippy's concern regarding the page may have merit. Thanks!Ronnotel (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ron, thanks for the note. To be clear I am not interested in the content there and I am only looking at behavior. I do hope the DRN discussion drives the open content issue to a resolution one way or another so that editors can spend time on other things. Zad68 13:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment was out of line. Thanks for clarifying. Ronnotel (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being in WP:3O

Hey there, just wanted to thank you for your service to the 3O project. I've seen that you have answered several posts since 2009, keep up the good work! It's always nice to see willing volunteers here. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind sentiment Ugog! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Guy... although I started the DR/N request. I haven't done this before, so I hope I haven't stuffed it up somehow - I noticed there wasn't a spot for me to write, and just assumed that I'd had plenty of opportunity to give flag my perspective by framing the question initially, but do let me know if that isn't the case. Thanks for taking the time to get involved and helping out, I look forward to getting your take on the matter. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are doing just fine. I like to keep things structured, and am currently focusing everyone on potential violations of Wikipedia's core principles, but rest assured that I fully intend to explore the other issues you have brought up later. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I appreciate your thoroughness. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)