- /Archive the first: November 2005 to June 2006. Welcome, questions, collabarations and controversy.
- /Archive the second
- /Archive the third
Re:Proof, Re.: People shooting at UFOs, Re.: Cattle Mutilations
Google:"People shooting at UFOs/Animal mutilations". 65.163.113.170 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've done that and I also found another rancher who shot at a UFO that was attacking his cattle. Ranchers WILL shoot at any and all intruders. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- They've not done a very good job at bringing them down. Jefffire (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments of the RSN
Just to be clear, you agree that a homeopathic article can be used as a RS. However you content that the fact that it is published by a homeopathic journal doesn't settle the issue of undue weight. Anthon01 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to be specific. If it is agreed that a thing has enough weight to warrant article inclusion, Then it might be that a journal mention is a suitable source to cite it, "it" usually being a belief or practice of homeopaths. However, text-books are usually better to cite with. Jefffire (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
awwww, OK
. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You really aren't helping yourself. Jefffire (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you keep harrassing me with your threats, I'm going to report you. that talk page if full of blatant violations WP:NPA WP:AGF and a complete disregard for WP:TALK, so get over it, and lose the cheap intimidation tactics. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not harrasing you, I'm asking you to quit being disruptive with your "humour". I don't find being called a Stalinist particularly pleasant, nor the half dozen other things you've called scientists on the talk page. So kindly stop. Jefffire (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you keep harrassing me with your threats, I'm going to report you. that talk page if full of blatant violations WP:NPA WP:AGF and a complete disregard for WP:TALK, so get over it, and lose the cheap intimidation tactics. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Jeffire, the behavior Boodles is commenting on is far more disruptive, and any "civility" issues should be addressed at the root of the problem. The user Boodles is commenting on is way out of line, throwing up Smoke screens, and I personally find it to be disruptive. If Boodles "socratic irony" is what it takes, well that's unfortunate, but it's better than locking the article over and over again, which is what we had before. You've threatened me similarly and it's getting old. WNDL42 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that means-to-an-end isn't an accepted excuse for incivility. In fact, it likely falls under WP:Point. Jefffire (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Balanced treatment of Civility issues at What the Bleep
Jeffire, I have found you to be, in many instances, a good and moderate advocate for your POV, indeed I would complement you as being among the "best of breed" editors among what is a largely incivil and difficult group.
Unfortunately, at the "Bleep" talk page, you recently said:
If a "consensus" only exists until someone with a a scientific background speaks up (or a Stalinist, as Boodles and Wndl42 call us), then it is hardly worth defending. A true consensus can only arise in a full informed community. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sir, I've asked politely on several occasions now that you please stop falsely portraying my characterizations of the conflicts there as personal attacks, as you have again, above.
The entry on my personal talk page that you posted at the Bleep talk age refers to this diff of the conversation, and clearly the critique it refers a general world-view held by off-wiki critics, not any person or group on wikipedia. If that "shoe" I described happened to have an uncomfortable "fit", then I am sorry -- but you are assuming bad faith by publicly interpreting it there on the talk page as an "attack" on you.
Now, posting links to my talk page discussions is not appropriate on an article talk page (incivility), especially to the extent that you choose to remove the discussion from it's essential context (again). You know full well where the vast majority of the discrediting attacks come from...indeed you are to be commended for taking time to counsel some of the most chronic and unapologetic members of that "tribe", and when I use that word, please consider your edit history may be less helpful than you think in the context of this "tribal" behavior.
So FYI, here is the context that you have excluded in order to discredit me there. It's disingenuous for you to repetitively harp on "incivility" that can more accurately be portrayed as Socratic irony as a sometimes (unfortunately) necessary part of Socratic discourse, while you defend what is a long history of much more serious behavior elsewhere -- this is tantamount to talking out of two sides of the same mouth, an irony illustrated here, where you "tag" people for "opening up scabs", but then you rip them open yourself on the article talk page. I would respectfully request that you strike/delete the offending talk page entry at WTBDWK and please don't repeat this again. I look for you to revert to a more balanced approach to your civility assements, your team needs a leader. WNDL42 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The comments on your talk page are clearly directed towards science based editors. Furthermore, your condescending description of said editors as a "tribe" in need of a "leader" is particularly ugly. In light of this attitude, I see nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion. Jefffire (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, no further discussion needed. I have registered my concerns about your commentary at the Bleep talk page and if there is no recurrence, then there's no problem. To the extent that my invitation to you -- to treat your established role in a more balanced fashion offends you, then I do apologize -- no offence intended. Cheers. WNDL42 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rather a large number of your supposedly innocent comments are open to 'misinterpretation'. If you can't see why describing groups of editors as a "tribe" is unhelpful, then my advice is that you depart. Jefffire (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I do see your point. Thank you. WNDL42 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Bleep
- I was just opening up the edit window for your talk page when I got the "new messages" window. I'm there. This isn't a discussion, it's just a prolonged tantrum.Kww (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- After this, I'm eager to see what you write in the RFC. Clearly not even trying.Kww (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you ever do it, this is probably worthy of mention as well.Kww (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sock puppet accusations now? Well, I have plenty of time tomorrow. Filling out a RfC is a pest, but compared to the time wasted at the moment it is necessary. Jefffire (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you're serious about this, I'd be behind you. Unfortunately my support doesn't mean much, since I've only got one actual edit to my name; I thought it would be best to watch and learn for a while rather than blundering right in. I've only been observing for a couple of weeks, but to an observer, this one really stands out for positions which are not only unique to the user, but apparently constructed on the fly and flimsily shored up, yet defended as stubbornly as if they had all the logic and solid evidence and consensus of the world behind them. Good luck. Woonpton (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- For your interest, it's been created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WNDL42. Jefffire (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a note sent to my talk page (sorry, I don't know how to make those compact little link things)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoonpton&diff=194796427&oldid=193321889
- would there be any purpose in adding it to the RfC, or would it be considered redundant? Woonpton (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- For your interest, it's been created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WNDL42. Jefffire (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you're serious about this, I'd be behind you. Unfortunately my support doesn't mean much, since I've only got one actual edit to my name; I thought it would be best to watch and learn for a while rather than blundering right in. I've only been observing for a couple of weeks, but to an observer, this one really stands out for positions which are not only unique to the user, but apparently constructed on the fly and flimsily shored up, yet defended as stubbornly as if they had all the logic and solid evidence and consensus of the world behind them. Good luck. Woonpton (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sock puppet accusations now? Well, I have plenty of time tomorrow. Filling out a RfC is a pest, but compared to the time wasted at the moment it is necessary. Jefffire (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you ever do it, this is probably worthy of mention as well.Kww (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Trigger happy
Hehe, me, too[1]!