User talk:Shot info

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for your humor on Talk:NCAHF. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard [1]. --Ronz 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT!

It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --Ronz 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett and all

Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it.

Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.

However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases?  ?? Jance 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) Shot info 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--I'clast 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, last time I looked you where either WP:OR or not. Shot info 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-Jimbo--I'clast 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say WP:N as an example)  :-) Shot info 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.Jance 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what, we have this other thing called WP:N which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars Shot info 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - Thanks again for the humor. --Ronz 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

General on Barrett NCAHF etc

You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Wikipedia, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article.

I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities.

I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Wikipedia or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.Jance 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points).

1. I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true.
2. I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion.
3. I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of Glyconutrients was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). Shot info 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a good thing that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, ya?  ;=) Jance 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) Hmmm, maybe I can use it as a excuse to clean it up hey??? :-) Shot info 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep!

Would you still add smething re Curtis? I am not quite sure what to do. I don't have a hotlink, but a hotlink is not necessary. I don't want to provide a hotlink from a dubious anti-Barrett website. However, the scanned opinion is the same.  ?Jance 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. This is the only issue re Barrett/NCAHF that I find particularly alarming. And so did at least two courts, evidently. Now I am headed off to get sleep. This weekend (New Years) I am going to be working. I need a break from Wikipedia, anyway. If you can, you might peruse the material that Curtis added. I don't think it is a bad idea to have the positions of NCAHF, but the style, wording, and length need attention. I have corrected some spelling, and wording. Oh, and references, even if it is their website, and formating. Jance 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

I need your, Arthur, Ronce et al help on NCAHF. Curtis recreated the NCAHF website here. There is an edit war. It is absurd. I have worked on it, to summarize, and asked him what else he thinks is important that is not covered on the summary. He seems to want to recreate the entire webpage.Jance 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the transition of the picture size and the placement you did on Dr. Scheibner's page. I was wondering if you could look at C._ Alan_ B._ Clemetson and assist in the enlargement of the picture. Thank you.70.171.229.32 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)And narrowing the sides of the frame. Again, thank you. 70.171.229.32 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

Which did you think was ok? The article that is there now, and locked? Or the long 'version' that Curtis wanted to include? I wrote the version that is now locked - the section on "Positions". Curtis lifted large sections of the website(s), and it made that section pages long. The main issue now is the section on "Positions". And I can only speak for myself, but I do not object to "Curtis' taking it upon himself" to change the article. Everyone except Curtis objects to a series of excessively long sections that reproduces a website(s) and is a copyright violation.Jance

Hi

Your input would be appreciated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery BTW, it would be nice if you activated your email. -- Fyslee 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

You voted to keep the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for move to project namespace as a development project. Pass on the message. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about change your vote to Keep or move to project namespace! You can have it both ways. Thanks and best wishes. --QuackGuru 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response on QuackWatch

I made a response on JSE at the article as you requested. My opinion is that Kauffman really should demoted to the bulleted list as opposed to being featured. The grain of salt that we should give the reader with respect to Kaufmann should be pointing out the large chip on his shoulder, which is about the size of his gut. (He doesn't believe that obesity is as dangerous as most health professionals believe. I would hate to be his doctor.)

--ScienceApologist 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thiomersal controversy

I have again removed the site from the page thiomersal controversy. It contains too many external links already (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, also mentioned on WP:EL), furthermore, the page is not a reliable source, and those points are named in WP:EL as well. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

Thanks for the humor. It's a really interesting case. Too bad Ilena has to jump in and prove once again she why she should be banned. --Ronz 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IEEE

I think you once said that you did some work with the IEEE. I have a friend who is a software developer who is interested in going to work with them. How did you with them and was it a good experience? Recommendable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine, I didn't work with IEEE, I was a member for several years and received lots of their journals (their many, many, many journals). I really couldn't say what it would be like to actually work for them, but they treat their members very professionally. Hope this helps Shot info 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I'd remember you saying you did some peer reviewing for them or contributed to their journal in some fashion. Did I mention that I have an overactive imagination? ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the production and reviews of papers for their journals yes. You don't have to work for the IEEE to submit and/or review a paper :-) Shot info 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't know you've been published. Are you a developer? Which languages? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your still misinterpreting what the IEEE do, they are an electrical and electronics professional organisation. I have not been published per se but have been involved in various committees and companies that have been published (although I am normally listed as a co-author and/or reviewer). I am actually a control and communications engineer however I am now working in what we call in Europe "LV" (ie/ power electrical engineering). Most of the papers I were involved in, were the practical side of process control systems and implementation thereof. But to answer your question, yes I have being involved in programming but using IEC61131 programming languages which I think most programmers are unfamilar with (although SCADA systems often use barstardised versions of VB and C which I have also used). But I am beyond programming now, I just write the Functional Descriptions and let my minions do the actual code cutting :-) Shot info 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Sounds intense. I certainly know VB and C, but yes... never heard of IEC61131 (not a very catchy acronym). So you design SCADA systems to control the distribution of electrical power in Europe. Cool. My inner-geek bows to you. (My outer-geek is tired and must go to sleep.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, IEC 61131-3 has an article on Wikipedia. It's a bit of a stub, so you might want to contribute there. I asked my buddy about it and he's only heard of it and that's about all. He's a Linux/Unix guy and a strong proponent of open source. (Have you heard of the documentary "Revolution OS"?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly you use it to program distributed control system' and Programmable Logic Controllers which are machine and plant controllers (sometimes embedded controllers ... although the few I have touched of them used C...not C++ but C). No I haven't heard of Revolution OS. Are you into PCs and the like? Shot info 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I dig 'em, but I am not much of a programmer/developer. A friend of mine directed Revolution OS and it was pretty big within the Linux community in the U.S. (which is to say it was a very small film). I don't know that it was ever released internationally, so you might not have seen it. Oh, and my email should be activated here. I get emails from other editiors from time-to-time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development

You may want to read here. Apparently there is evidence that you are related to Stephen Barrett somehow (and I think he/she means a blood relative). Is this true? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a party to the arbitration and I have nothing to really add, nor do I have to defend myself against I'clast's quite badly worded diatribe. If there is "evidence" then he can present it (but I can't really see where he says that however). Otherwise, it is just more of I'clast's atypical MO which is him appealing to his own authority... Shot info 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I guess I am just asking you for a "yes" or "no" answer. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend somebody who agrees with his POV and he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No rebuttal required. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? Thank you. Ilena (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend you (somebody who agrees with his POV) and who he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(editing conflict) I honestly just want to know for curiosity sake. I'm not going to badger you to give me an answer though. I agree with you. This doesn't pertain the ArbCom. I just figured you'd want an opportunity to set the record straight. (**The editing conflict shows why I think you should set the record straight now before more people start arriving and asking questions.**)-- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What "record"? I'clast makes a baseless assumption (incorrect mind you) and the loyal hounds all go yapping? People can ask all the questions they want. While they are distracted asking such questions, the smokescreen achieves it's purpose. For one, I thought you were a smarter editor than that :-) Shot info 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to be clear. The record is the record of Wikipedia. I'm not being a loyal hound to anyone so no need to evade the question. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)