User talk:TerryE: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:24, 2 May 2010

Hello Terry, I sent the hyperlink to the new website to my private address and had a fiddle yesterday, but now the URL of your computer has changed and I cannot access the pages. Would you please be kind enough to let me have the new address address so I can play with it tomorrow. Please, send to panihaniab at domain aol dot com

I trust all is well with you and look forward to talking on Monday. I shall send a bit of an agenda in advance.Hajduczek (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do Terry TerryE (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General statement at XMRV

Hi, I wrote a little warning for everyone at XMRV. I think going back to the strict sourcing requirements is the only resolution that will bring some peace to the article. Cheers! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

Please, don't make legal threats or statements that could be perceived as legal threats, as you have recently done on my talk page. I take all such language seriously due to personal experience and Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NLT, I have brought your threat to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this claim was dismissed. See the archive: [1]. -- TerryE (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keepcalmandcarryon

Hi TerryE, one of our editors is concerned that you are making a legal threat at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Perceived legal threat. Could you please pop over and clarify whether this is the case or not? Thanks. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Please note that canvassing other editors ([2], [3]) with non-neutral messages is considered disruptive, especially when you have stated that the recipients comprise an "inner circle" of interested persons including "informed researchers in the general field". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:CANVAS is that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive". I am an open sort of person as you can see in my bio and from its links, and I do what I do in the open. My intent was to try to reach a consensus of the active contributors to the talk page. Four (you, me, ward20 and sciencewatcher) seem to track changes, but two don't. My post was to them in the open (rather than by PM).

My action was a statement by me on what I though that you were doing wrong and a request for the individual to participate in the discussion. Yes, I did state my POV, but I did not ask them to adopt a position or try to influence them in the content of that discussion and therefore WP:CANVAS does not apply. I recall a precedent by another user who made an accusation (on the discussion page) about the actions of one the boards participants (Ward20) and then notified the other users including me by message. What was his name? Oh yes, Keepcalmandcarryon that was it. (Interesting Bio, by the way.) -- TerryE (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry not Ward20, but Dangermouse72 on the XMRV article. -- TerryE (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KCCO: I do not acknowledge your statement that TerryE has canvassed my support, or been disruptive. I do not recognise any "inner circle", let alone belong to one. I can see no evidence that TerryE threatened you with legal action, and agree with admins who dismissed your accusation. On the other hand, I do note a pattern which might be termed tactical intimidation while seeking to impose a POV. If this persists, I will take advice on how it should be dealt with. Sam Weller (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whittemore Peterson Institute article

Please see Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you wish. I apologise for contacting all contributors, but I have been asked to be impartial by another editor working on this page. -- TerryE (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Terry E, you have personally attacked me by stating that I engage in "deliberate deception" and have "crossed the line". I would like to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. I would also like to emphasise that I respect your views and your interest in Wikipedia and trust that we can maintain a collegial editing relationship. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP question at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harvey_Whittemore. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the page. I didn't realise that you were an author of WP:NPA, but thanks for the reference, which I've now read I thought that the clause was "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". [My ital]. I felt that my comment was in line with the evidence that I provided, but then again I am a lot less experience at raising these sorts of complaints than you. Sorry. -- TerryE (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things can only get better

Hi Terry, I have seen your post about retiring from the wikipedia, this is not an easy place all of the time but sometimes it can de also, the more discussion you are involved in the more you will see that, I realize you are feeling the stress over this but take some time and if you feel to continue editing that would be great, I really found your interpretation of the policy at the WP;BLPN very clear and correct. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal involvement?

TerryE, in view of this, I would like to suggest respectfully that you consider your motivations for editing Whittemore Peterson Institute and related articles on Wikipedia. Your personal involvement in the ongoing XMRV and CFS debate may not lend itself to objective participation in encyclopaedia editing on this subject, and will certainly do nothing for your stress levels. Please believe me: I write this not out of spite or anger or desire to get my way but because I recognise your abilities as a writer and researcher and fear you are underutilising them in pursuing an ideological rather than an encyclopaedia building agenda. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you have produced this reference. If you'd asked me I would have given it to you. I have a Masters in Maths, and one of my semester courses was on trials design. I felt that this was a reasonable and technically specific criticism of the Imperial paper based on my academic knowledge, in that the team broke one of the central rules of cohort selection. If you want to see an academic description I can provide references or you can search for "Selection Bias" "Trial Design" and find them yourself. My textbooks are probably out of print now. In essence, if there are CFS sufferers who have XMRV, then it is plausible to posit that they tend to be in the lower ranges of the CFS ability ranges, or if XMRV is correlated to our virus infections such as EBV, then selecting your cohort from patients who willing and able to travel routinely into the centre of London to take part in psychology studies and who have no other biological symptoms, then you are excluding the very class of patients from your trail that you are nominally seeking to detect. However, since I am not an acknowledged expert in this field I wouldn't dream of proposing it an RS source.

If you are saying that a declared interest in the subject disqualifies you from input then by this argument editors such as sciencewatcher and Tekaphor would also need to step down. One my other interests albeit post degree was in formal logic, hence what you might see as pedantry and I as rigour in using RS and the logic rules around any treatment of content. So my interests here are in letting the facts from the RS speak for themselves without mutation or distortion, whilst maintaining an overall proportionality. I see no conflict here. This comment doesn't even relate to WPI anyway; there might be more of a case of me avoiding posting on Prof Simon Wessely's page, which I don't do anyway. -- TerryE (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Terry, I have seen a bit of the recent editing, your request is fine but as there was a report made against me my the other editor it is best I stay out of the discussion, try to talk about it, the wars at wiki are not won in a day, avoid repeated reverts at all costs, use policy and discussion, if you get no where try a reguest for comment on the talkpage, I will have better look and see if I can think of a way you could progress, regards. Your interpretation of policy was very good and verbalized, stay on that path. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey listen up

WP:NPA, i did never touch you and attack you, i am gone six months and you attack ME at an article i do not edit. KC is a good editor, so your fave theory is shoot down, do not take it out on him!!! Thx btw, i watch the article now. RetroS1mone talk 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem user(s)

Hi TerryE.

Recruitment, or reactivation here: [4] followed by:

Mass revert at CFS[5]

Deletion of other users's comments about KCCO's problematic editing at WPI:[6]

Unsubtantiable claim that I attacked her, with a threat of blocking, on my userpage. [7]

As you're more involved with these issues, and WP procedures in general, you might know how to check whether these two accounts are in any way connected. Thanks, Sam Weller (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, thanks for your note at my talk. However, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon. This SPI is not the same as the AN/I against me. It's not at all trivial, and it specifically addresses your concerns about KCCO. Sam Weller (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viral causes of autism

I am not sure were this conversation has moved too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the issues. Made a few comments. Requesting an apology BTW is bad form Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute#The_Bartender_.E2.80.94_the_saga_continues. Would recommend you cross this out. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer :-) Well the virus I agree is notable the association between the virus and CFS is barely notable / verifiable. By this I mean that all we have is four pubmed citation and no review articles. [8] I am sure that this will changed with further research. HIV too was once in a position like this. WRT the association all we can say right now is that it is tentative. We could say that two further studies using different methods failed to confirm the results of the first thus calling it into question. Not sure I that helps.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good report

The sock and meat report does look to have merit terry, stay on focus and report the similarities and the dirrerent accounts working together which is the meatpuppetry, have a read of Wikipedia:Meat_puppet#Meatpuppets , it is bad enough here working to improve an article against normal editors without the excesses of sock puppets and meat puppetry. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, that report is closed with some comments that the meat puppetry has clear possibilities, are you going to progress with the report or are you letting it go? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity and beyond

Hello Terry I do not know how to reply in a 'new section' so I hope riorob will excuse me jumping in here - thank you for your advice. Unfortunately I have replied again on the discussion section on the CFS page - everytime there is a response to my comments I cannot help reacting - I guess it comes from a combination of a lack of experience on Wiki and too much experience being on the receiving end of the treatment handed out to ME sufferers - I now fight and shout at establishment - I WILL learn. Regards Notashrink (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terry Just read the above (all of it!) Sorry (I apologise a lot) if my edit has caused you any additional stress - not my intention - I quickly understood the original research etc for denial of my edit, but seriously you guys pissed me right off Notashrink (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to get the last word don't you? Explain infinity? :) :0 Notashrink (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terry - just to show I am not a baddy - I hope this makes you smile - I was going to put it on the CFS page but fortunately I thought better of it

The Truth About Penguins (and CFS research) By Peter Kemp

I wanted to study the nature of penguins.

The 'Canadian' definition of penguins is that they are: • Flightless • They can swim • Largest species up to 1.2 metres tall • They eat mostly fish • They lay 1 or 2 eggs • They generally live in colonies

The 'CDC' definition of these birds is that they are: • Flightless • They sometimes eat fish • They lay eggs • They can swim

The 'Oxford' definition is that these birds are: • Flightless • They lay eggs

The 'Oxford' criteria was chosen for the research as the others were too difficult to apply. 100 subjects who met the research criteria were studied in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The research found that penguins: • Live in deserts • Cannot swim • Are up to 2.4 metres tall • Weigh 200 pounds • Capable of speeds up to 40 mph on land • Are mostly vegetarian

Conclusion:

The research has discovered the truth about penguins. Those funny black and white birds waddling on the ice and swimming in the sea are making fools of everyone. They are not real penguins and should be excluded from all further research into penguins.

Notashrink (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holding effective discussions

Terry, thanks for your note. I did find one project, but it looks like it's inactive. I've also started to start something in a sandbox. Maurreen (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any edits or comments you make to the sandbox will be appreciated. Maurreen (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New messages at WT:BRFA

Hello, TerryE. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whittemore Peterson Institute

I think we were crossposting on this article, I was about to revert and you beat me to it. Ward20 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont threaten me again please, its very unsavoury behaviour. 86.133.108.188 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

======================================

New Message:

Hi TerryE and thank you for your note

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner&redirect=no re NawlinWiki's deletion of every single entry about myself I made-- including the deletion of my own (owned) photograph which I had that day licensed to Wiki Commons. Despite your carefully cited caution tacitly intending to suggest that it is NOT so, it IS INDEED a point of fact that personages covered in Wikipedia are NOT prevented from contributing to their own bios. This is true. Kindly do not try to steer me or others away from fact on this point.

Apologies for my leaving a comment in wrong place re etiquette. It's a deep, complex site here. I will observe even more carefully, and be cautious.

I would like to mention a few current facts regarding myself. I am a member of the Creativity religion, a religion ruled valid and legal my federal judge Lynn Adelman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_S._Adelman in June of 2002. I have never been a member of a "Neo Nazi" organization. Indeed, I have never seen a dictionary definition for the term "Neo Nazi".

Further, a week ago Friday, a mob of ARA threatened to storm my place of employment if I were not fired. They said I did not have the right to be employed because of my political views which are 100% predicated upon my religious views. As a result, I was fired--the first tiome I have been fiored in my life. Some days after I filmed Vancouver communists at Braid Station in Vancouver (search Braid Station at Podblanc) , someone firebombed one of the ARA leaders of the demo. He and friends immediately publically and to police insinuated that "Neo Nazis" were to blame, the tacit suggestion being myself, though I was not named. It's ludicrous. I think there are zero "Neo Nazis" in Vancouver, lol--this being one of the most Marxist environs I have ever seeen. As it happens, I was in a public place, witnessed, and I could not have done this deed. Here is the mention of the firebombing whioch appeared in Metro newspaper and, I believe, The province and The Vancouver Sun and maybe others. It was the lead article in Metro: http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/497948--neo-nazi-link-feared-in-abbotsford-arson I think ARA bombed themselves for attention, much as Jews often adorn their edifices with swastikas.

ARA, Anti Racist Action, has been convicted of many felonies and more minor charges, particularly against White Nationalists such as myself. They threatened Paul Fromm, attacked Jared Taylor in the maritimes and attacked Matt Hale and members of my church, WCOTC, in York, PA.

My personal believe is that ARA, in the same way that One People's Project is funded by the SPLC, is funded by ADL and Mossad and that a firebombing attempt will be made on my life. Read ex Mossad agent (and Canadian-Israeli) Victor Ostrovsky's books if you think this outlandish. Wikipedia. by it's agenda-driven, politically critical and half-baked inaccurate characterization of myself, and by it's pugnacious obstinance in allowing anything remotely positive to be said about me, is helping to drive this firebombing attempt. I must therefore insist that Wikipedia allow me to provide interesting, contextual edits to my own biography, else Wikipedia, NawlinWiki and all other editors of my page will most certainly be held partially liable for cleverly and via cherry-picked, agenda-driven intent inspiring murder of attempted murder should I be killed or horribly maimed by homemade napalm of the ARA. If I am not allowed to present fair related facts of myself (even dates are wrong in NawlinWiki's largely incorrect account, and my own photo was summarily deleted), then the damage has already been done.

I know you are a volunteer and this is over your head. I have written Wiki. As you probably know, Podblanc has the power to drop just about any subject into the google top ten within minutes or hours. This we will continue to regarding your hateful characterization of my life. I reiterate that I DO NOT want my page merely deleted. That option would not correct the damage that has been done.

I will gladly provide documents and links to back up most of my entries, including the fact that Byron Jost, filmmaker of Minority Rule starring Prof Kevin Macdonald, Joe Sobron and E. Michael Jones, did in fact own 15% of the Estonian edifice. I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

I hope you, as a lower level volunteer, will immediately refer this to your superiors. I will publish the entirety of this messsage onto Podblanc and will soon start making videos about it on Deprogram.