User talk:Calamitybrook

Welcome!

Rent to own

I thought you’d like to know that I’ve just filed over at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding all the bias over at Rent to own. —Wulf (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2008

Talk:Wilderness diarrhea and User Talk:Bob K31416

If you want a response to the message that you put on my Talk page, please put it on the page Talk:Wilderness diarrhea where it belongs. Otherwise it will disrupt our ongoing discussion there and make it difficult for any other editors who are following the discussion. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic COI issues

There has always been a number of chiropractors and chiropractor true believers editing the chiropractic article. Most of them have an extremely difficult time complying with NPOV. Currently, this problem exists today. I can provide the evidence if requested. QuackGuru 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic adjustments

[1]As I understand it you would like the article shortened. Specifically, which sections or section do you think needs improving or shortening. QuackGuru 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)-------------------------

Calamitybrook, this is EXACTLY what we have been trying to say to you all along: that COI issues must be determined by the owners and operators of WP and by the editors who may be faced with a COI. As I previously observed to you in a prior post, I am one of many LDS editors who have vowed that IF and WHEN there ever comes a time when I or they can no longer contribute to LDS articles in an unbiased way, that either our personal beliefs or our duties as WP editors must be set aside, we will step down from contributing to/watching LDS articles. And most Wikipedians accept that.

I know that you never INTENTIONALLY suggested banning LDS editors from working on Mormon-type articles. But it appeared to be abundantly clear by what you were saying that you had strong objections to LDS editors working on Mormon-type articles.

I am grateful that you had the integrity to admit that you have a degree of personal bias against Mormons. Admitting something of that nature takes a lot of courage. I’m unsure quite what you meant by saying that I said something about Indians actually being Jewish. I never said anything to that effect, and I fail to see anywhere in this discussion where that claim was made by me or anyone else.

Just as you couldn’t stop LDS editors from working on Mormon articles, neither can I or any other LDS editor prevent you from working on them either. The main issue we had was the fact that you kept pushing an issue that in our opinion didn’t even need to be raised. If that left you with the feeling that the intent was to stop you from so contributing, rest assured that it was not. You are more than welcome to contribute to ANY and ALL WP articles, whether about “Mormons” or not.

The issue arose when we felt that you were trying to advance YOUR opinion as something that should be WP policy. And that neither fits in to WP’s role or is appropriate for WP purposes. If you still feel that what you said was valid and had merit, I again encourage you to voice that opinion to the proper person here at WP.

If you do indeed have intentions to no longer contribute to LDS articles, I would like at this time to conclude by thanking you for your honesty about this issue that troubles you and to wish you all the best of luck as you continue your WP editing. Rest assured that I hold no malice or ill will against you for what you have said both here and on the talk page of the article in question. I hope you hold none for me and again wish you all the best in your future endeavors. If there is ever ANYTHING relating to WP that you'd like to discuss with me in future, I hope that you will do so. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness diarrhea

First, welcome on board with the shadow ArbCom - its new home is at User:Mr. IP/Shadow ArbCom.

Second, here's some thoughts on the "causes" section re-write:

• I like it, generally.
• In order to avoid eventually getting hit with the {{Globalize}} tag, it would be a good idea to make changes to the first sentence of the third graf. ("According to an American study..." or something like that)
• As we've seen, there's a clear double bind in including the information about non-pathogenic causes of what might be called "wilderness diarrhea". If we include the information about diarrhea relating to strenuous activity without a statement about how activity-related diarrhea can possibly be mistaken for pathogenic "WD", the new information can be attacked as irrelevant to the article subject and removed on that basis. (The article will also seem choppy.) If the new information is included with a statement contextualizing it - i.e. a statement about the possibility of mistaking simple activity-related diarrhea for pathogenic WD - the article will be better for it, but the linkign statement will be assailed under WP:OR and WP:SYN. I say that we include a statement and defend it, because the article won't read well without that context. Don't know if I am making sense.
• If the article in general is presenting an overblown perspective and suffering WP:OWNership problems, I'd be happy to support an effort to deal w/ that.

Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Newer version

I'm definitely liking the latest version you showed me and will be more than happy to help defend it. It establishes "WD" in context quite nicely! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Traveler's diarrhea moving

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway, as you did to Traveler's diarrhea. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. (see specifically Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Prefer singular nouns) David Ruben ^Talk 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But that wasn't a test, it's a simply a correction. I can get you plenty of sources if you need them.

Wikipedia allows such things, because, it's Wikipedia.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

again wikipedia does have Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Prefer singular nouns as policy (plus as per Talk:Traveler's diarrhea, singular is the commonest use of term) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 07:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. - comment on discussion points, not on other editors. David Ruben ^Talk 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian cinema

Well, I dont recall any exact scene about children watching puppets, but Satyajit Ray made a number of movies where the protagonist is a child, some of them bildungsromans, apart from his children's movies. These include the directed Pikoor Diary and the famous Pather Panchali, as well as the screenplay written for |Phatik Chand. These movies are a good insight into the Bengali rural and urban lives seen through child's eyes. Most of them should be available on Amazon, or through the wonderful public library system.

As for the 1940s film on the dance evangelist(?), I m not sure if the films were shot in situ - I would doubt that this would be the case with 1940s film technology in India. So, it is possibly a docudrama or a retro-looking film : do you recall the language ? Was it Bollywood ? This should narrow the field down considerably.

Good to see someone with such a diverse array of interests ! ray (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I m sure you know about this resource already, but check through Worldcat. For the trilogy, see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53810290&referer=brief_results

Happy hunting ! ray (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Giardia (or whatever the correct spelling) is what I got - brilliantly explosive and fun to talk about a long time later but not at the time SatuSuro 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

-Thanks

Talk: Wilderness acquired diarrhea

Calamitybrook, Regarding your comments at Talk: Wilderness acquired diarrhea on 05:58, 14 October 2008, please note Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, For the sake of efficiency in the discussion at Talk: Wilderness acquired diarrhea, instead of raising previous issues as if they are new, please check responses to those same issues that you have raised in the past, and answer those responses. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, I note that you are still exhibiting the negative behavior mentioned in my previous message of 21 October 2008. Please try to use this feedback constructively. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:WhatamIdoing

Calamitybrook, The message I left for WhatamIdoing on that editor's talk page was for that editor, not other editors. I wanted to have a discussion with WhatamIdoing and that is why I went on that editor's talk page. Please respect that and do not disrupt my discussions with other editors on their talk pages with uninvited remarks. Of course you are free to start your own discussion in a different section, but please don't disrupt my discussions with other editors on their talk pages. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC

Storm King Highway

Just so you know, the bit about the road closings was already in the article, twice, and sourced at both occurrences, so I'll be removing it as superfluous. The death, though, can stay. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reppy

{{helpme}} Somehow I found and lost the userpage of an editor, who says there that he or she wants to create an article on John Reppy. I'd like to communicate with this person but can't find the page. How can I re-locate this person's page

• There isn't a search for userpages I don't think. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yokun Ridge

Thanks for your concern, but feet (m) conversions in articles are consensus approved fare and common practice. In fact, you can't get an article up to approved WP:featured article status without them. I've reverted your edit.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Yokun Ridge. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Perhaps you are new to Wikipedia and don't understand how things work. The references section clearly indicates a source for the elevations (A map and guidebook printed by The Berkshire Natural Resources Council, with actual elevations). I believe the map and guide are also available online; you can verify the elevations yourself. USGS topomaps also show the elevations indicated, as do a number of commercial guidebooks. There were no bots involved here, as is plain from the article's short edit history. In short, it is against Wikipedia policy to erase material supported by a reliable source. Doing so is disruptive and constitutes WP:vandalism. To best avoid these problems, please familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. I have reverted your edit. Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S., see WP:Welcome as a good starting place to get a clear idea of how Wikipedia works. Also see WP:References, WP:Style, and WP:Vandalism. Best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My error; I transposed ft/m in the template. Apologies. I've fixed the problem--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Brand

What you need to source is the claim that Hawthorne wrote the book in relation to his experience on Mt. Greylock--something that is not apparent from his work of fiction in itself. Please provide a reference for this claim. Hope that helps to clarify things. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you just did so. Good job.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Can you please fix your settings to stop marking all your edits as minor? Minor edits are edits which do not alter the content of the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have not done this. Please go into "my preferences", click on the "editing" tab, and uncheck the box labeled "mark all edits minor by default". Thanks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you having a problem fixing this? Labeling edits minor, when they're clearly not, is very poor form; a lot of users' watchlists filter out minor edits. It's sneaky. If my instructions above were unclear, please let me know. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I left a reply to your question on my talk page. --DRoll (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

I have already asked you repeatedly to stop marking your edits as minor, and even explained in detail how to do that and why. You even apologized for doing it. What else is it that you need? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop just undoing my edits. You shouldn't use "undo" on anyone's edits without using a proper edit summary. More important than just etiquette, though, is that the changes you're forcing into the article are improperly formatted, with extra brackets and bad spacing. Take the time to actually look at what you're doing there. If you want to work on a different version, you can at least cite your sources properly and take the time to set up the paragraphs the right way. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bear Mountain Inn

You are indeed correct that it's important ... it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and I have made some additions to the article reflecting that. If you've got JavaScript enabled, here is the 30-page NRHP application (a major source for any listing). That might have even more info than you've got already. Do you have a photo? Do you want me to go get one as soon as I can? When we do we can put it in the article and an infobox. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sooo right? Probably, maybe and no

Calamity,

It does look like you are on the right track with the K-center (as far as I can tell), the question of notability has come up and I'd say that it may very well be - it certainly is more notable than the subjects of many other articles, but "otherstuff" is not considered to be a very good arguement around here. The place where you may be wrong is in emphasizing a particular view of the situation - all we can do is report what reliable sources have said (on their own). If you get to the point where you are piecing together extracts from reliable sources, that seem to point to a particular story - but the sources don't actually spell out that story - then you will be guilty of original research, which is considered a sin around here. You might be sooo right, but still be in the wrong. I'll just give you this as a caution. I haven't yet seen anything that could be clearly called POV pushing or original research, but I detect (perhaps falsely) a tendency in that direction.

Hope this helps.

Smallbones (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

Please use Talk:WorldNetDaily to discuss the issue instead of reverting and possibly being construed as edit warring. As explained on the talk page, per other journalistic articles, the political orientation is brought in the description, not the lede. See Indymedia for example. Thank you, and please reply on Talk:WorldNetDaily. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you truly believe that the sentence "It frequently argues against the theory of evolution and advocates other fringe viewpoints." belongs in the lede? Secondly, that is unsourced, so as of now is considered WP:OR. Please bring a source and move it to "Descriptions" or remove it. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As a sysop, my interest is ensuring that the wikipedia philosophy of WP:NPOV is applied evenly and consistently across articles. Having certain articles trumpet issues while others hide them is inappropriate. The article clearly references the leanings of WND, in the proper place, similar to Indymedia. I am afraid that statements like "Yes I do indeed think a Web site that aspires to "mainstream" by carrying lots of AP articles, yet supports wholly fringe anti-evolutionist and similar views, should have its orientation presented in a lede." indicate that you may have a WP:POV that is preventing you from approaching the article neutrally. Please review wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. An exercise that is very helpful in combating each and every one of our own POV's is to try and write the article from the opposing perspective. Either way, I hope you continue to contribute to wikipedia, but in accordance with its policies and guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record

Some say "Hitler was anti-semitic and others disagree," which is "TRUE" certainly, but frankly, dumb.

Despite your citations of Wikipedia policy, I certainly don't accept what you are trying to impose on the article. Avoiding the obvious in lede is a sure route to eroded crediblity.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy is policy. I see no mention of potential extreme liberal bias in the ledes of Indymedia or The New York Times for example, although many claim they are. I would not want to see such Poisoning the well in the ledes of those articles either. It belongs in the text of the article, presented in such a way as to minimize well-poisoning and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. We deal with verifiable facts, not personal opinions. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy is Policy

Nobody can argue. So simple. I do think, however, the statements at issue are well-sourced. What is your view on Evolution?

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are well sourced, the bring them with the sources in the body of the article. My personal views on Evolution are irrelevant; my job is to implement policy. By the way, if you wish to engage others, you need to refine your question. As it stands now it is too ambiguous. Are you talking ongoing adaptation and selection or are you talking abiogenesis? Most people say the former when they mean the latter, especially people who have not studied the issues, but use them as signaling indicators to confirm or deny pre-conceived notions, of which they have no interest in dialogue but confrontation. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to check someday the definition of "abiogenesis" but I suggest you consult Strunk & White regarding good writing and exotic words.

I'm glad you say you've got a job though.

The citations are included by obvious implication in (see below) statement and might be redundant.

If you want to challenge the actual, existing citations, that's a different question.

Regarding confrontation: You're the one saying that characterization of Drudge's favorite "news" site as "right wing" is unfair point of view. A patently silly statement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here: abiogenesis. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One other point. May I suggest you carefully read the statements of people with whom you are conversing; you seem to be under a misconception. I have no problem characterizing WND as right-wing. It certainly is. My point is that plastering that in the lede is an issue of Poisoning the well and is not done on other journalism articles. May I suggest you read the second sentence of WorldNetDaily#Description. If there is a better, yet not obviously provacative, way to state that, that is fine. Although I suggest you use the talk page instead of making unilateral changes so that there is no edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're opposed to an accurate characterization of salient facts in the lede, you win. Perfectly okay with me.

But really, it's an utterly foolish idea regarding ledes.

Calamitybrook (talk)

I am for an accurate representation in the lede that does commit any logical fallacies. I was basing my comments on articles such as Indymedia and The New York Times. If you feel there is a systemic problem in how journalism articles are handled, there is a wikiproject on journalism which is the logical place to start. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Benighted Wikipedia Administrator

You're a Wikipedia "Administrator" with a deep misunderstanding of basic principles for writing ledes. It's reasonable to assume that you are similarly uninformed about a wide range of subjects.

You've avoided responding to simple and obvious comments regarding your purely personal viewpoint about an editing issue. This makes me deeply pessimistic regarding Wikipedia.

Thanks for elucidating your benighted personal views.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

. I have to thank you, Calamity. You've brought a smile to my face on a very busy evening in which I'm trying to fill a client's last-minute deadline before their board meeting tomorrow. Now for a quick lecture on your ambiguity. When you asked me if I believed in evolution, you were making an implication which was an example of the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. Your idea of bringing in the red herring of evolution was based on your preconceived notion that someone who has right-wing leanings is likely a fringe nutjob, and one way to tell is to see if they believe in evolution, because, as we all know, everyone who does not believe in evolution must be a wackjob, and thus should not edit wikipedia, because they are hopelessly partial. I've seen this fallacy constructed in a much more sophisticated manner than you have done here, but that is the premise. The premise is flawed for many reasons, including the fallacies of red herring, ignoratio elenchi, the package-deal fallacy, and false dilemma to name a few. Furthermore, if you believe in the above line of reasoning, you perforce must believe in the same argument substituting "left-wing" for "right-wing" and "abortion rights" for "evolution". Personally, I think both premises are just plain old wrong, for the reasons I listed above. However, at the time, I was uninterested in discussing philosophy, and you made the same conflation that so many other people make when giving these types of politically-motivated but logically unsound arguments--you said "evolution" when you meant "abiogenesis". Belief in evolution does not imply belief in abiogenesis, much to the dismay of many undereducated but politically motivated people. Lastly, you have mentioned Strunk & White a number of times. Once again, your repetitions imply that you have actually not studied what you say, but are merely repeating some tidbit you heard somewhere. In that vein, I direct you to Chapter V section 14 of the fourth edition of "The Elements of Style" and remind you that one's ear must be one's guide, and sometimes there is no substitute for the chosen word. "Abiogenesis" is the proper word for what you meant, even if you were ignorant of the difference and did not understand your own argument. One should not use simpler words when they are wrong, only when their use does not detract from what is being said. Parsimoniousness never overrules accuracy. I hope you will actually read what I wrote as opposed to merely tossing it away based on your continued miscomprehension that I am some right wing nutjob. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)