User talk:2over0/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Talk:Acupuncture - moved section

Greetings Eldereft -- just wanted to let you know I've moved recent discussion from the top to the bottom of the page in a new section: Changing the introductory paragraphs (2). cheers, Jim Butler (t) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy

Your continued attendance to the "energy (spirituality)" debate would be welcomed by at least this contributor, if you'd be so kind as to respond to the rationale there explained. Redheylin (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphs and the blind

I agree with this revert, but the reason given ("the graph speaks for itself") isn't quite right. Wikipedia is intended to be useful to the blind, who can't see the graph. The caption in question didn't need the extra adverb, so this revert was fine, but in general it's helpful for blind readers if captions repeat the graph. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and describing the information presented is just plain good style even for the seeing audience. I try to remember that this encyclopedia is read by the blind, non-native speakers, &c, but do feel free to correct me when I slip up. And yeah, you are correct that that was an adverb, too. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SOHP

I included a link to the newsletters published to the web by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology because the newsletters provide information about a new organization that is concerned with a facet of health psychology that has emerged relatively recently. The newsletter articles are largely nontechnical and accessible to the general readers. ~ISS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this comment and replied at Talk:Health psychology. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some expertise in occupational health psychology within the health psychology article. I am trying to improve the description of OHP.Iss246 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)ISS246 Moved to appropriate section. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Whom do I ask about getting the rating of the Health Psychology page raised above "Start Page"? It is far from a feature, but it is better than it was. Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)ISS246

Seems to have been taken care of while I was out. I have not myself dabbled in that particular corner of Wikipedia, but for future reference I believe that anyone not intimately connected to the article in question may go over it and assign a rating. Such people may be found at the relevant wikiprojects. Good and Featured articles require more rigorous and formal review: WP:FAR. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Chiropractic profession is fringe

Eldereft, I want to thank you for your input at the chiro challenge. I very much appreciate your objective, logical and sensible view on this. We should have done the challenge 4 months ago when all the drama started, but it took awhile for the issues to really play out. Although I might not be around to see the final outcome I do want to say that it took guts to come out and say what you did and actually listen to the arguments and evidence presented. And for that, I am extremely grateful, whatever the outcome. I just wanted to be heard fairly and believe, as I always do, that in time, science and research will support or refute the claims. If chiro is primarily for NMS, as the evidence demonstrates, then it should be not be shackled by the rules of WP:FRINGE as it currently is. If that is my legacy here, great because it was based on reputable sources, both academic and layman and not the innuendo and personal opinion of a handful of skeptics who treated it as fringe without the evidence to support such a stance. Bob Dylan said it best "times are a changin'". Very best, CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re on my talk page...

Oh, I forgot about Reiki- I think of that as paranormal. I guess a whole lot of paranormal involves healing in one way or another. I'm really not that sensitive to stuff, I don't recall that you did anything questionable, if you did (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain your recent edits

thanks

   * (diff) (hist) . . Akashic records‎; 15:25 . . (+8) . . 75.101.10.126 (Talk) (added missing words needed for syntax)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Garden of Eden‎; 12:08 . . (-279) . . Eldereft (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 216610581 by Majeston (talk) rv. Please take it to Talk:Garden of Eden to make your case)

Majeston (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Majeston (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrical sensitivity

Hi

I'm not sure if you are an admin, or even the right person to ask, but there is some controversy over on the electrical sensitivity page. A user has made numerous and massive edits to the page without getting consensus first. I have reverted then reinserted some good edits, while starting discussions about others on the talk page. However, the user hasn't joined the conversation and just reverts to his preferred version. I think it might be wise to protect the page for a short time so we are forced to discuss the changes, and it would be best to start this from a stable, previous, version of the article. What do you think? Can you protect it? Could you give me or other users advice? I'm aware that I may have acted contrary to some rules I'm unaware of, and I'm now worried about "edit warring", so any advice you have for me too would be greatfuly received. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not an administrator, but I have forwarded your request to requests for page protection (which was taken care of even as I wrote this - neat). There is a list and a category enumerating the administrators, but the several noticeboards (listed at the top of the RPP page) are a pretty reliable way to get outside input. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Style Guides

Regarding your revert here, firstly WP:MOS is not a policy but simply as it says a guide. Secondly I can find no where on that page, or related pages such as Style Guide Medicine to support your notion. a See also is to contain blue wikilinks, which a navbox contains. I cannot see, despite what you say, why manual links cannot also be included if need be under that heading, above the box. All in all your revert, to say the least, appears pendantic, perhaps you might explain further your explanation? As origonating author of that Article there are indeed good reasons for the change. Jagra (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:ME/CFS hypotheses#Navbox placement. Please also see WP:OWN. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quit the wiki and run

How is that vandalism? I don't get it. If you don't convince me, I'll put it back. Rracecarr (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Restore it if you really want to, but it serves no apparent purpose but to inflame a currently quiescent issue and revel in the misery of others. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's funny. People need to stop taking themselves so seriously... Rracecarr (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is funny (as is the one on your page), but it is also kinda mean-spirited, no? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be interpreted that way. So I will leave well enough alone. Maybe I'll put it on my talk page with the anon's other effort. Rracecarr (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

The Homeopathy ArbCom case has finally run its course. Remedies include no Sourcing Adjudication Board and providing for discretionary sanctions to enforce the primacy of encyclopedia-building over advocacy and original research. Some more explicit language and nice pithy quotes along the lines of WP:PSCI would have been nice, but still - 2½ cheers for the committee! - Eldereft (cont.) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

Thanks -- though the whole section seems to have gone...along with my comment. Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Herbalism

Feel free to be bold; there's nothing wrong with deleting the comments, coming up with a new title for my comments, and leaving them, is there? I'll delete his comments though. II 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Atropa belladonna

thanks for that title change - that didn't even occur to me when I made it. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that sort of thing happens a lot even on non-disputed articles. Just try to keep it focused on content and remember that the talkpage is supposed to serve as an archive for people who were not around for this particular series of reverts. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Electrosensitivity again

Hi. Thanks for your help previously. Randomized is causing trouble again on the ES page, would it be possible for you to have a look? Thanks. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Here is to hoping that this does not flare up like Talk:Cold fusion. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear

That our precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community, is actually showing their true colours by only going after those who a reality-based slant - while letting off the more serial offenders. Now why is it that this doesn't surprise me. It's even got to the point where other admins now are starting to question their "uninvolvement". Time for some popcorn as the wiki-dramaz increases...you would think some admins would learn... Shot info (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw a thread (on AN/I, maybe?) discussing that possibility. The Machiavellian interpretation would be that it is probably easier to get the people who do not have a direct financial interest to shut up than to stop the carping from the people who do have a direct real world stake. This leads naturally to a quieter and more balanced encyclopedia. I guess it goes back to the old problem that a superficial veneer of civility (e.g. "with all due respect") is commonly considered more insulting than polite, but is somehow socially acceptable here.

On a related note, what is up with the medicine denialists' propensity for addressing everyone as "friend"? None of my actual friends do that. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I have no idea :-) Perhaps its one of those things where if you say it often enough, it becomes the truth? Similar to most woo really :-) Roll on the dramaz moar :-) Shot info (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turnin

You left a message on my talk page regarding the page reference to my posting about the aforementioned subject. It is a footnote on page 46 of the book, The Demon-Haunted World. This is a book by Carl Sagan. Thanks, Thomas Conway (tfcii) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfcii (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

process equation

why you say 'general fixes' in edit summary while actually deleting images with no explanation, and references?Lakinekaki (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You deserve a word of commendation for your objectivity in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts discussion. Bravo! Hgilbert (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you :). I consider that a strict and correctly weighted adherence to our best sources is what makes this place actually useful instead of just another internet forum. Now, if only we all could agree on "proper weight" and "high quality source"... - Eldereft (cont.) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

Sorry, I think I need to take a wikibreak judging from the number of typos I've made in the last 48hrs... Verbal chat 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Amusingly enough, an editor made the same typo over at WT:FRINGE last night (local). I really appreciate all the good work you do at EHS and elsewhere, keep it up. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also amusing - did you see that you made Word of the Day yesterday? - Eldereft (cont.) 10:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How discombobulating! Thank you for your most enthusiastic contrafribblarities. I'm anus-peptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have possibly caused you such pericombobulation. I shall return interphrastically... ;) Verbal chat 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't alarm you too much with the above edit... if you're not familiar with le adder noir, it's definitely worth it (but not the first series)Verbal chat 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not at all. I actually avoided Black Adder for a number of years due to an unfortunate Mr. Bean experience, but fortunately a friend was kind enough to chain me to a DVD player and feed it discs for a few seasons. And I quite enjoy wordplay, neologisms, and occasionally getting away with bullshit. My 'busy in RL' clause is kicking in a little harder than it has been lately, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

kardashev scale

Look...

The table is about Energy production not about power production, but the electricity anount of energy is not expressed by the unity of power alone...

If you wish to know the amount of electrical energy produced you need a unity of time always..

Terawatts are expressed in instantaneous power production but not in amount of energy... to be expressed in amounts of energy you need the unity of time...

thats the way it is in electricity.

kardrak (talk) 23:08, 3 Aug 2008 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article and have made a suggestion and warning here. What I really didn't want to do is block you but, if either you or Kardrak continue warring after protection is lifted, I shall block the pair of you for 24 hours. In future, please abide by the WP:BRD cycle. Thank-you. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. I just counted that I reverted four times - oops. That edit is, unless I err, blatantly wrong, not blatant vandalism. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your 'Theory of impetus' edits

Thanks for your stylistic editing of this article. However unfortunately as well as definitely improving some things, it also loses what I regard as important points, and so I want to revert or edit some of the edits. If you intend to do more editing of it could you possibly be so kind as to post your proposed edits on the Talk page for discussion first ? It seems to be largely me who is developing this article on a historically important topic, and inter alia I am trying to give it some kind of logical unity and coherence, unlike other Wiki articles on the history of science as I see it, which tend to present disconnected lists of points without rhyme or reason that are often also logically incoherent.

I propose to break the internal ‘Aristotelian physics’ article link because that article is so appallingly confused and mistaken in my view. Hope you agree. Thanks.--Logicus (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine on all points. I just ran across that article in the normal course of editing and thought that it sounded very confused and confusing. Part of the style I was trying to improve involved segregating points and arguments to the several sections, e.g. the 'Aristotelian projectile' section stated that later impetus theories rejected the notion of a medium-mediated impressed force. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused ? Thanks !. However, I am unable to see where the original text before your editing was confused and confusing at least because "the 'Aristotelian projectile' section stated that later impetus theories rejected the notion of a medium-mediated impressed force."

Would you please be so kind as to indicate where, if anywhere, there is such confusion in the original copy below by some form of highlighting, so that I may try and reformulate it more clearly myself ? Thanks, in anticipation.

"[edit] The Aristotelian dynamics problem-situation of projectile motion

The problem for Aristotelian dynamics posed by the continuation of projectile motion against the resistance of gravity post-projection, such as a stone thrown upwards, was the question of what the mover is that keeps it moving upwards against gravity after the original projector stops pushing it and releases it. Aristotelian dynamics presupposes that all motion against resistance requires a conjoined mover. But in 'detached motions' such as these, there is no visibly apparent mover.

Whereas Aristotle had tentatively suggested the auxiliary theory that the propellant is the medium which is endowed with an incorporeal motive force impressed within its parts by the original projector as they also excite the medium in the original action of throwing the projectile, impetus theoreticians found this theory empirically inadequate and refuted. [1] So they replaced it with the alternative theory that the impressed motive force is impressed directly within the projectile itself by the original projector rather than in the medium. In the process they dispensed with the intermediary propelling agent of the medium in Aristotle's theory, deeming it redundant. Impetus dynamics was thus a secondary theory of Aristotelian dynamics that saved its core principle from refutation by projectile motion and observed it by identifying an internal impetus as its conjoined mover rather than the external medium. What all variants of impetus dynamics had in common was the theory that an incorporeal motive force - be it called an impressed force, mayl or impetus - is impressed within the projectile by some projector.

However, there were crucial differences and variations within Aristotelian impetus dynamics as it developed from its original Hipparchan version of antiquity as subsequently adopted by such as Galileo in his early Pisan dynamics of his 1590 De Motu and its scholastic Avicennan version adopted in the later impetus dynamics of his 1632 Dialogo and 1638 Discorsi."

--Logicus (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey, I think we need some clarification on the telescope article's talk-page. InternetHero (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you give your opinion agian on the new section? InternetHero (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So rendered. I am leaving town shortly and will be unable to participate in that discussion until Monday. The discussion seems lively, and I expect that it should remain civil while your uninvolved third opinion is away. If you decide to pursue further dispute resolution measures in the meantime, please notify me here so that I may follow any proceedings. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A+++++

Good comment, would read again. Enigma ^message 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reddi

Thanks for the reversion at Unlimited energy. Could you also take a look at this edit by Reddi? I have reverted that article once today, and prefer not to do so a second time.--Srleffler (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that clearly does not belong. I wish that there were some way to convince such a prolific editor to be productive. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WQA

I believe that, unfortunately, a WQA will not be enough. A RfC/U will be filed within the next few days, and hopefully you will endorse it if you agree to the summary of the dispute. - DigitalC (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you are wrong, but it was worth trying. I have half an eye on your sandbox, but I need to go bone up on the RfC/U rules. I believe that it is required to be certified by two editors showing evidence of attempts to resolve the same dispute with the user in question. If the dispute includes WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA related to Talk:Telescope, I think I can endorse. Do keep me informed. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I would have a much harder time showing WP:OWN and had a hard time collecting diffs for WP:CON. There was another user planning on starting the RfC/U, and I merely collected diffs to help out, but at this point I think it is almost ready to file. If you have any feedback on how to improve it before filing, let me know. You are correct that two editors need to certify it, and I don't think I will have a problem with that, as I feel multiple editors have tried to resolve this conflict. - DigitalC (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Or any subset thereof. The attitude evinced in the edits you list as WP:CON was what made me think of WP:OWN, but consensus is better for those. Really, if he calms down, slows down, and starts collaborating constructively I will be happy. You might also include the blatant failure of the WQA as a relatively short discussion that provides evidence of attempted dispute resolution, but other than that I think you found all the diffs that I know of that are relevant. Good job. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that collaborative, constructive editing would be the best result of all this. The RFCC has been filed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. DigitalC (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my comment.

As I made plain, I was quite unsure of where to put it. Formatting is improved, too. I've just received a comment on my talk page about sounding like I am out to "get" her/him, so I guess I didn't manage to formulate the comment neutrally enough... --Hordaland (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Received an even newer comment there; new "situation" brewing. I should know better... --Hordaland (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. And, indeed, now I might be a racist. --Hordaland (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. Add the diffs to your summary on the RfC/U, they seem to be part and parcel with the same pattern of anti-collaborative behavior. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. In my usual verbose style, unfortunately. I also spent an hour or so hunting for his explanation (I know I've seen it somewhere!) for why he replaces commas with colons. Had I found that, I'd have cited it while complaining about the colons added to Norse Colonization. As it is, I just mentioned punctuation. (Have you seen that explanation? Something about 500 years is by definition a list of years so it can be preceded by a colon, and years and space are the same thing - have you heard of Einstein and Big Bang? --something like that.) I did find something about not liking commas, but that explanation eludes me. --Hordaland (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the article is about colonisation.... I'll be here all night! ;) Verbal chat 08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A-HA. There's the explanation!--Hordaland (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

babesiosis page

I can see why you deleted some of the portions I had entered if you didn't take the time to read the sources. I have taken the time to read the sources that are there presently. The source that says babesia is uncommon is from 1996 and a single case study done in missouri at that time. That is quite outdated and probably not the best source to rely on for such a major statement.

A lot of what you wrote is good stuff for the record I'm just focusing on what we can do better.

The part on epidemiology only mentions the epidemic areas of babesia microti, I added a section for duncani, and mentioned the occurance of divergens in europe. That should not be ignored since those tend to be the more deadly of the species (especially divergens).

The other big problem is the part saying most cases resolve on their own without treatment. I've mentioned before that saying that is like saying the same thing about TB. I'm guessing that came from reference 11. If you check that reference it is a case study done at univ minnesota and they reference older texts (one even from the 1800's) most of those texts though are from the late 80's early 90's. So with new information available we should include that.

The diagnosis section looks pretty good as is but what is written pertains only to babesiosis in it's early stages. We could mention how difficult it becomes to diagnose if it wasn't suspected and tested for early on. There are also differences between the species which I added and were deleted, but could probably be better written anyway. Here are some articles if you want to check those out and see if there would be a good way to include them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16725142

This one talks about the problems with diagnosis http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/15/3/365

And this one is a lot to read but mentions previous studies that support asymptomatic infection in many cases.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=107933

This article includes an explanation from the CDC how asymptomatic patients are usually the ones that donate blood and pollute the blood supply because they don't even realize they are carry it.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no3/chambrln.htm

Pryorka82 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging Treatment of depression

Hope you're not offended that I went ahead and did it. The discussions on this topic go back to October '07, Talk:Major_depressive_disorder/Archive_3#Merge_from_Depression_and_natural_therapies. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That AfD did not seem to end with consensus to merge, so I figured a fuller discussion was in order. The article ended up in much better shape than it was the first time I ever poked around its edges, but I really do not see how that article can be anything other than a massive fork (not to mention spamcruftisement magnet). It may be gone by the time I post this, but as of right now there are articles at Treatment for depression and Treatment of depression, which should certainly not be the stable solution. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm working on getting rid of the extra article. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Query on user page

Nope, no 'new message' message when someone comments on a user page. But the user page is (automagically?) included on the watchlist, and that's where I saw it. Umm, was I sooo nasty? --Hordaland (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Enh, I would not call it bad per se, but the bend-over-backwards approach makes it easier to distinguish the people who can contribute constructively from those who cannot. I like to think it saves time and effort in the long run since the bad ones figure out that the project is not for them or are sent away, and the good ones get some pointers on how things work around here. There are, of course, frustrating counterexamples. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right (of course). I have noticed some really good examples, and sometimes wonder how people manage to do it without sounding condescending. I'll try. --Hordaland (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to which issue you refer, but each of your several posts to that page seems to have attracted neutral third opinions the usual way without canvassing. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fibromylagia study link

The interscience.wiley.com link you mentioned in Talk:Reiki#Fibromyalgia_study doesn't seem to work. That looks like it could be an important reference for the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultec (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. The link is just the Lee et al. reference 6, discussed extensively at Talk:Reiki#Scientific research. A while back the relevant section was described by everyone doing their own searches of the primary literature and trying to characterize it according to their own biases (or at least arguing extensively about WP:UNDUE), and having an actual systematic professional assessment has been a great boon for stability. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 on AN/I

A heads-up, Firefly322 has launched a rambling complaint against you on WP:AN/I#User:Eldereft Engaged in negative WP:OWNERSHIP/edit war WP:TROLL activities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just added an incident report of you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([1]). Please stop tagging my articles to make a WP:POINT. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Awfully sorry, this got put on your other page.

@Hrafn - Oh well, that is what I get for wikistalking you.

@User:Firefly322 - Thank you for the notification. No worries for posting to the wrong page, but thank you for correcting it. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Apologies for a sort of edit conflict at ANI when I posted without noticing your response, I think the issue's resolved but I had some difficulty with following Firefly's argument so feel free to remove the tag if you want to continue. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, too near my bedtime. One issue down, up to Firefly if he or she wants to fight on about the tags, so no longer resolved. Enjoy. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm unsure what Souza is posting about here. But anyway, I added you to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. ---Firefly322 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:MEDCAB

First, don't worry at all about interactions with Hrafn, or the concerns with following, wikistalking, etc. It's already been established that it's beyond what MEDCAB does (even though people are still posting user conduct concerns there). There isn't anything to state just now; I saw that your only involvement was to carry out a merge after discussion; after Firefly tells where the problem lies with that, we can get a discussion going. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep a weather eye on it. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

SE

Stochastic Electrodynamics has a LONG history going back on Wikipedia because Bernard Haisch was actually a Wikipedian for awhile who was taken to task for engaging in self-promotion. He then almost became an editor-in-chief of some sort for Citizendium because he was so pissed off by his treatment here.

Anyway, SE is very extreme fringe stuff: advocated by one group as a cutesy idea and deried by a couple other minor characters on the archives. It has little in the way of peer review and is generally ignored. I'm not sure why it has survived AfD because I think the idea is almost wholly non-notable. Just my opinion.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5