User talk:The Rationalist

User talk:Peter Damian
This page is a soft redirect.

Hey Dude, well that was a long time ago. I came to your page then because I wanted to share a really bizarre set of messages I got on my talk page from a friend of ours from the Bleep page; no doubt you'll know who I mean. I didn't keep them on the page but they can be found in the history if you're really interested, although I'd advise leaving them where they are at this late date and saving your blood pressure. Nothing's got any better since you left, in fact most things are worse. Filll is hardly ever seen any more, which I think is probably just as well because he was way too burned out and too emotionally invested to be effective. Raymond Arritt stopped editing in May or June (he was an administrator too, which was a great loss as there are fewer and fewer administrators who have any understanding of NPOV or RS or what makes something encyclopedic; all they care about is civility and ensuring a "collegial editing environment" for people writing crap and garbage). Raymond still occasionally leaves funny comments on his friends' talk pages under pseudonyms, but his absence is a real loss to the project. Science editors are more and more under attack and less and less supported by the project as a whole. I decided in late May or early June that there wasn't any percentage in my trying to edit here since there seems to be no commitment to ensuring content quality by enforcing core policies like NPOV and RS, but I have kept watching areas that interest me, in the hope that things will improve. Though I no longer work in article space I do comment on project space once in a great while, as I did today in this thread about Science Apologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment

That thread provides something of a quick view of the current state of Wikipedia.

In other words, if you value your mental health and equanimity, you should probably just stay out of here, although I do miss having you around. Thanks for saying hiWoonpton (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey that's put me off. The Rationalist (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have welcomed you back by unloading all my discouragement on you, but at the moment I don't see a lot to be hopeful about here. Welcome back.:-) Woonpton (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back again

Hey, glad you're back again. When you said you're reading the cold fusion case, did you mean the cold fusion case of last year, or the recent Abd/WMC case, which was the result of disruptive editing on cold fusion?

I won't discourage you this time by unloading my discouragement on you, not only because I don't want to scare you away but also because my comment from last year (above) was used as "evidence" against me in an ArbCom case, so I am more careful these days about saying what I think in my usual straightforward way. If what I said above is even more true now than it was a year ago, I'll let you learn that by making your own observations and drawing your own conclusions.

The speed of light arbitration is an interesting one to watch from a science/philosophy standpoint, or started out that way; now it seems to have deteriorated into a lot of purposeless bickering. Woonpton (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I meant the most recent one but couldn't pretend to follow the ramifications of that. I followed the trail for a few yards from your talk page then gave up!. If you follow my contributions I'm just sticking to cleaning up the logic of the pseudoscience articles and stay away from the controversy. Keep in touch.The Rationalist (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I didn't know the above quote from almost exactly a year ago was used - how?The Rationalist (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say hi, though I don't think I know you. More editors in this area is a plus, even ones "just" (as if it's a bad thing) cleaning up the mess after the rest of us :) All the best, Verbal chat 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to give you a barnstar or something if you'd actually been able to follow the Abd/WMC case and make sense of it. The quote above, actually just a sentence or two of it, plucked out of context, was used as evidence in that case. I'd find the diff for you except that I don't care to look in those pages again. If you're interested, go to > Evidence page of the case > Evidence by Abd > "There is a cabal" section > link to evidence for cabal >link to page on Woonpton. I think that's where it is (following Abd's evidence is like following a trail of breadcrumbs). He combed through my entire history and found a few isolated comments I'd made, mostly on user talk pages, and with liberal application of OR and synthesis, tried to weave them into a case that I am part of a "dangerous cabal." Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the cabal too? Shows how much attention I paid to those ramblings. You think we'd know other members... Verbal chat 18:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Woonpton (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@verbal I've been here over a year. First time round I tried to work on an article called What the Bleep and failed. Second time (see message above) exactly a year ago I popped in again but gave up straight away. I will try and keep a straight head this time. @Woonpton: thanks for your amusing note. The Rationalist (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not

Not to worry, I knew it was a problem of fixing convoluted diction and not one of comprehension. - Nunh-huh 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse, and removing "refers to"

As I stated in my edit summary, we put "commonly refers to" in this case because the definition of sexual intercourse has expanded beyond its original/common definition. The original/common definition goes first, and then the ways in which the term has expanded in definition, etc.

In the past, I had to work hard to make the lead of this article please everyone; one person felt that it was too heterosexual in presentation, which was a long and thorough discussion (filled with unpleasant accusations), and so a balance was carried out for the entire lead by me.

There are other articles that also use "commonly refers to" or "most often refers to" due to their being more than one definition of the term, such as Anal sex, Gender, etc. (I also reverted you on the Gender article; your change was "off" for a few reasons.) Keep a lookout for such articles as those before attempting to remove "commonly refers to" or "most often refers to."

Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming back to state that, seeing how you put "colloquially means" for the Gender article before I reverted you, we could put "commonly means" for the Sexual intercourse and Gender articles as a compromise for you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't worry about it.The Rationalist (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Dollman

Not a typo. German. See 'what links here' The Rationalist (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, apologies for that mistake. I undid my move and redirected the "George Dollman" page to "Georg Dollman". The article itself mentioned "George Dollman" which - in conjunction with finding 16 links with that exactly spelling - caused me to move it as a likely typo. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, now a splendid article. Now I'm off to bed (this being London). With best wishes. The Rationalist (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do little else then agree with that - my compliments on an excellent new article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you The Rationalist (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedians who don't live with their parents

I have nominated Category:Wikipedians who don't live with their parents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIV dissent and AIDS denialism

Hello, I would ask that you review the discussions regarding HIV dissent and AIDS denialism regarding the HIV dissent article. It is clear that there is a very biased POV of the current editors of HIV and AIDS denialism. I am attempting to create an article that would contain information that is not widely accepted, particularly by the editors of the aforementioned articles. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Neuromancer (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but, er, I think the establishment has got it roughly right. You shouldn't be 'forking' articles like that. Perhaps I can help smooth things over? The Rationalist (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section?

Hi Rationalist, I noticed your comment on a request for arbitration, and unless I'm looking at it wrong, it looks like you put it in the request for arbitration re Skip Sievert, when your comment appears to be about Ottava Rima, which is the request just preceding that one. If so, you may want to move it. Hope everything's going good otherwise. Woonpton (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, was about to say the same thing myself. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. —SlamDiego_←T 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this should have gone in the comment about Ottaw, sorry. (Long day)The Rationalist (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though someone has moved it anyway. Thanks. Hi Woonpton you see I got invited to an AIDS denial page, but those days are gone. German architecture was completely without confrontation and I pretty much had it to myself. Regards The Rationalist (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to go over your comment once more. I am confused about the second diff, which you says shows you introducing a pronoun when you are actually expanding one. And I think it would be a good idea to make sure to write his name correctly. Cheers Hans Adler 23:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note

[1] - I did not realize that you felt that way about me being abrupt. I don't even know if I realized someone changed the page - I was going through the various pages to check things and I noticed the fact tag and began to clean up. I am sorry for not looking closer and seeing that making the statements would seem abrupt or trampling over another. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]