Jump to content

User talk:Valjean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JWSchmidt (talk | contribs) at 04:23, 9 June 2009 (→editor and admin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  Some principles governing this talk page  

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- BullRangifer (collaborate)
  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  

  DON'T DO IT!!  

Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself on or off wiki should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "BullRangifer" tag should be used. My personal identity and activities off wiki should be kept separate from my user name and activities on wiki. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (collaborate)


Sense About Science
is defending author Simon Singh
from chiropractic attempt
to chill free speech.
Add your signature to the thousands of others.

What's in a name?

Name change.

Alternative medicine critics

Please help develop this. Use the talk page.

Stuff....

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab - project start
Copyright
"In the U.S., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, published works needed an explicit copyright notice to be covered by copyright law. (Lack of a copyright notice on a print run of Houghton Mifflin's American publication of The Lord of the Rings allowed Ace Books to publish an unauthorized version od the trilogy.) After 1976, all published works were covered, regardless of whether they had a notice or not, and unpublished works were covered as well -- so whether a webiste explicitly claims copyright or not is totally irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
Abd problems
Complete block log for all blocks
Wikipedia:Community portal
Bad websites
Dealing with advocates of fringe theories
A comment of mine copied from here.
You say you are "not an advocate", but your writing says otherwise. That you have a POV on the subject, even an advocate's POV, is itself not a problem. We all have POV. It's when it causes you to perform original research synthesis violations, and without reliable sources, that the problem becomes evident. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the article, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a fringe subject that is covered by our fringe theories guideline:
  • In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
  • Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
That's why articles like this are treated differently than articles about proven ideas. In articles like this, mainstream sources (like Quackwatch) are given preeminence over fringe sources, and mainstream POV is also given preeminence over fringe POV. NPOV requires that all significant POV are presented, but fringe POV, being unsupported by scientific evidence, take a backseat to mainstream POV. Proven and unproven ideas are not given equal weight. Promoters of fringe POV should be glad that their ideas are even allowed to be presented here. It happens because Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but it must be done using verifiable and RS. If it isn't documented in such sources, and is only presented in fringe sources, then it gets very little, if any, coverage here. That's the way it works here. If you want to change that, then take your concerns and questions to the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Good luck in your future here. There's alot to learn, and learning to edit here according to our policies and guidelines is an education that will benefit you in many ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context tag
RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery
Homeopathy
Block and unblock of a POV pusher
  • "unblock-un reviewed|Ok, so I seem to have been blocked for having an inappropriate name. I apologise profusely for this, I didn't realise at the time of creating this account that it could be taken offensively. So i would like to keep my edits etc, as I have put a lot of effort and time into edits I have made. I suggest the username 'Acromantula'|2=User:Acromantula is taken; please consult Special:Listusers to search for usernames to find one that isn't taken. While we're on it, if you username had been available I would be rather hesitant to unblock you. Yes, your username is (somewhat) offensive... but you were really blocked because you are POV-pushing. Admins are generally hesitant to block for POV pushing, because it's a judgment call. But I'm firm in my judgment, that's what you were doing. No one has been buying your argument that the Cold reading article should say that it is only "claimed" that people use cold reading. Your basis of argument is your own beliefs, rather than external factors like sources. And you continue to hammer the same points regardless of how many people have opposed them. In other words, you lost the argument and you should stop; it's crossing the threshold into disruption. So, if you find an available username I'm willing to unblock, and view this block as only about your username, but this POV-pushing behavior is a serious problem and if you don't address it you'll soon be blocked again. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Source (Bold emphasis added.)[reply]
  • Promises to reform: "unblock-un|Then how is the name 'machomonkey'? And i apologise if you dislike my edits, yet i have felt that they are biased towards the oppposite viewpoint. What I have done is not right, admittedly, although it is no worse than what has been done by others. If that is what is required, I shall change my ways." [1], but the edit summary says otherwise: "contested block and provided new name"
A prof
  • "As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc." User:NootherIDAvailable [2]
Editing controversial articles
Feel free to comment. -- BullRangifer / talk 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spinal manipulation research
A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of helping to avoid duplication.
If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. -- BullRangifer / talk
Category:Ilena's early IP addresses
Nice navigation bar here
Wikipedia:How to edit a page
Excellent tips and tricks.
Straight version of chiropractic article
User:69.127.37.241 made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2008! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. -- BullRangifer / talk 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
  • {{User:BullRangifer/Template vandalism}}
  • {{User:BullRangifer/Background}}
Created List of alternative medicine subjects
Done. -- BullRangifer / talk 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
Music groups
Supergroup (article), Traffic, Blind Faith, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Dire Straits, The Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Spencer Davis Group, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Aerosmith, Queen, Big Brother and the Holding Company
Musicians
Steve Winwood, Dave Mason, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Jim Capaldi, Ginger Baker, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, John Mayall, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page
It's all about our learning curve
Let's start with a quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:
  • "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education." [3]
It's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about. - BullRangifer

Wikiproject User Rehab

National Mentoring Month Logo
National Mentoring Month Logo
This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab

Recruitment and membership

Can I join, or is there something else I have to do? --Abce2|Howdy! 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! This is a new project and we need to have more editors who will support the idea, provide suggestions, and help develop the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've joined. What should I do now to help the project? --Abce2|Howdy! 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now can you figure out which category this project should be listed under? We need other ideas and resources. If there is a similar project, then we might merge with them or establish a formal collaboration. Find out anything you can about problem (often banned) editors who might be worth saving, any other methods used to help them, others who might be willing to help here, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the asking other editors who are willing to help part, do I just ask them? Could you also please reply on my talk page from now on? Thanks. --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you know another editor who might share such concerns, let them know about the project and invite them to join. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to get more people. --Abce2|AccessDenied 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I got someone to join! Finally! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More poeple! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are one good recruiter! Thanks so much. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} But you are the one who stated it all. So here, take this tea. You deserve it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks! How about continuing this on the project's talk page? If you feel comfortable doing so, feel free to copy this whole section there, and give it a heading like "Recruitment drive", for example. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Abce2|AccessDenied 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, count me in. Abce2 told me about the project and it seems like a nice departure from playing whack-a-vandal all day.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Just add your name to the "Participants" list and then spread the word. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! You're taking my job! Just kidding. --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does oversees mean? I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could be worded better. It means a probation officer assigned to each "parolee", or something along those lines. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think what you are doing is really good and in need for the project. I would like to sign on but before I do I need to ask you if you think I should at this time? Since I will be going away here soon for surgery, would I be causing problems signing up and then disappearing for what ever time it takes for spinal stenosis surgery and healing time? I don't want to harm what this new project is attempting to do as I think it has wonderful potentials. I would appreciate you opinions on this or anyone elses who may be lurking here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thought would be go ahead and put your hat in the ring and help get the project into the air, but do not volunteer to mentor anyone back into the project if you do not feel that such a time commitment fits with your schedule at this time. Also, heal quickly and well - WP will miss you until your return. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm off to go do that now, thanks for your kindness. I will do what I can to help even if it's limited for a time. Thanks again so much, it meant a lot to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still find my verbage on the project page too long

I hereby authorize you to shorten it as you see fit! ↜Just M E here , now 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab

So whats the deal on this? Did you go through the proper channels? Or are they just blowing smoke?Drew Smith What I've done 05:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect blowing smoke. I have seen several projects start and there were no official hoops to jump through that I was aware of. The start of projects is a community matter usually started by the interested parties, without the possibility (besides MfD's) of skeptics of the project stopping and censoring it. If there is some official way to do this that was missed, then we'll just have to do it, but I don't recall reading anywhere that it was an absolute must. I could be wrong, so I hope to be enlightened. Even if there is a method that was missed, an MfD using this as an excuse is just a form of wikilawyering. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres our problem. There is a formal process at wikiproject council, and you attempted it, but didn't do it quite right. I fixed the mistake. Here is the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/User Rehab Get everyone willing to support it to sign there as well as the project page. This really should have been done first.Drew Smith What I've done 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I must have just added it directly without realizing that it was a requirement to use the template. Where does it say that? Why have other projects been started without starting here? Here are a few:
  • Paranormal
  • Rational skepticism
  • Alternative medicine
I don't find anything in the archives that indicates that they started by using this process.
Please place a notice on each of the user talk pages of current members. I have to run now. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new wikiproject

Hi there, I have come across the rehab project that you set up, and I have given my support to it, as well as voting in favour of a keep on the deletion discussion. It seems like a brilliant idea, one that should have been done before. I am only a new user, but please let me know if there is anything that I can do. Yours, Fahrenheit 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

You really should be careful with your tone, as it could be seen as uncivil and nearing personal attacks at times. Accusing editors of ignorance isn't the politest of things. And, for the record, I doubt any editor at the MfD is ignorant of the project's intentions - a good faith attempt to rehabilitate disruptive users and vandals into Wikipedia - but we have many issues with it. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My tone is perfectly civil. When I say ignorance, I mean ignorance of what I have written in that discussion, and that's why I requested you and others to read what has been written. When I repeatedly read critics complaining that this will coddle disruptive editors, that it will use ordinary supporters as mentors, etc., that's a pretty clear sign of ignorance of what has been written, so "ignorance" is the proper and civil word to use. This is going to be tough love, only for banned editors, and only experienced admins as mentors. Please help to get the critics to be more accurate in their criticisms, and to stop basing criticisms on fears of possible dangers. That's totally unfair. To come to the project's talk page and utter such fears would be a totally different matter, but to use such hard-handed measures as an MfD to prevent a project from even getting started based on unproven fears isn't right at all. We need guidance, help, and constructive criticism. What we're getting is only destructive, aimed at destroying by prior censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab. I apologise that before I raised it I failed to see your reply here. At the time of nomination by the way, all the project said was 'this project is an attempt to codify such a system to be overseen by trusted admins'. While admins might oversee it, it was not clear at that point the role they would have (it is pretty vague) and it wasn't clear that admins would be mentors. Computerjoe's talk 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks

I'm sorry, but your actions in failing to properly propose the project, and here [4] are what undermined, and ultimatey doomed the project.Drew Smith What I've done 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

We both know that the failure was out of ignorance, and that many other projects have been started without using this process, without a single complaint. This complaint is just an excuse. That's all. It didn't doom the project. Falling for this ruse may have. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually those projects were ok because they weren't importan. This project had the potential to be very big, and a big part of the DR process. Thus the need to go through the proper channels.Drew Smith What I've done 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does make some sense, but I wasn't aware of that, and I never have seen any notice that this was the ONLY way to start a project. It's a shame that my good faith attempt was met with such hardhanded methods based on fears and suppositions, but no evidence, by someone who openly admits he doesn't know!. Whatever the case, being treated by you as I have been, I'm pretty discouraged. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case that might NOT be of interest to the WP:REHAB

This was an indefinitely blocked editor who arbcom decided to change and give a chance to 'rehab' back into the project. I think this gives an example big time of what the project will be dealing with. Check out the following; [5] and [6]. Read the talk page of this user through history as he deletes a lot of discussions that he is uncomfortable with. I know about this from the middle of the problems. I went to the CFS page and saw and participated a bit trying to calm the waters a bit but with no success on my part. I think this is a good example of what the Rehab project would experience and with this editor it's not just the for/against element. This editor has touched people across the boards. I think you should check this out because it's leaving me feeling that maybe we need to rethink the rehab project. It does show what some of the other editors were worried about I think but I would like your thoughts on this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking at the links (yet), is this user interested in returning? Are they interested in reforming? Do they see and understand the errors of their ways? I don't see the project's job to be forcing reform on someone who neither sees the need for it nor can see the need for it. I suspect that good candidates will have been banned for some time and have had time to really rethink their approach to Wikipedia. How do these questions apply to this situation? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the user is interested in returning and apparently used arbcom email to get himself unblocked. Of course I don't know all the details of the unblock though.I would think though to get unblocked after the community overwhelming was discouraged. Right now with what has been going on since I posted to you it's not going well. The battle lines are being drawn and so far he seems to be on his own as he is burning a lot of bridges he had to have built. I would suggest you read the ANI. I think you should also know that Cool Hand Luke was part of this and now has recused himself from the situation. So, no I am not suggesting this editor for the rehab program. What I am suggesting is for you to read how this is going because if this new project is going to work then we have to see what is not working verses what might work and this time it looks like a 'it's not working' adding this editor back into the project, I sure hope I am wrong though. Just thought this could be an experience for you to read so as some have said, we know and understand what others have tried and failed at. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was hopeful, as Guido wont acknowledge anything to do with his block, the two arbcom reviews of it, and is now wikilawyering about his topic ban and insulting editors all over, I'd advise you not to touch this. It's a shame, and sorry for the run-on sentence. Verbal chat 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbal, I wasn't suggesting involvement, just reading what has happened since I don't think Brangifer knows this editors history. I was suggesting it to see how badly things might go for the rehab program. I think this can teach us for the betterment of the project being started. Good luck with Abd too! ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the situation and it's a poisonous atmosphere. This is a good illustration of why I think the rehab project must be for truly repentant users, those who have realized the errors of their ways, are willing to be taught, and taught about exactly why their previous behavior got them into trouble. They should not be coddled or shown any sympathy, at least not for their behavior. They must realize how truly bad it was. We don't need this type of user in the project or at Wikipedia. I don't want to waste the project's time and to have editors who have been mentored and helped by the project go out and resume their bad behavior. No, that mustn't happen. That's why I suspect that very few banned users will be able (or wish) to avail themselves of this service. It should be a sort of reform school, and that's not all fun and games. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anymore about the unblocking? Why was he unblocked? Was there any demonstration of repentance? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sure don't, it was apparently done through the use of email with the committee or some other means. The topic ban sounds like it was originally agreed to but then you see where it's been going. Sorry, don't know the answers that is why I thought this might be of interest because it was done out of view and seems to be not working. I don't know if the reasons can be got, maybe CHL can say? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry Ball

Hi BullRangifer, re. this, thanks for your constructive contributions to the laundry ball article. You have improved the article as it should be, and not taken the lazy option I followed. User Verbal's contributions in that article were not constructive, with his reverts simply moving from one unsatisfactory state to another. He did actually make the same revert 3 times (undoing changes made by 3 different users, including myself), interceded only by a grammar fix, and leaving only sarcastic comments in his edit summaries that others should fix the problems he reintroduces. It's good to deal with someone who contributes constructively rather than simply heads for the revert button :) Thanks! Greenman (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at the history of that page. Verbal had made only two edits to that page within the preceding 24 hours and wasn't anywhere close to 3RR. Technically, to violate 3RR, one has to make four edits. If edit warring is going on, even less than three edits can get you blocked. The content was properly sourced and was being removed, not moved to a better place. Once Verbal realized that the problem was it being in the wrong place (which still wouldn't justify simply removing it), he moved it to a better spot and you still removed it. That's pretty bad. You had edited that at least twice, just as many times as he had, so you were in no position to point fingers. I'm going to make a guess here as to what has happened. You have been having a revert war with Verbal at the Patrick Holford article, and there he was warned for approaching 3RR. You got carried away and kept reverting him, but now at a different article. At least that would make sense of this. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that my reverts at Holford were, I believe, exempt from WP:3RR under WP:BLP rules. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to both you and Verbal, I see you are correct. Verbal's 3rd edit, which I assumed was the same as his first two reverts, actually fixed the error. Greenman (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He only made two edits to that page during a 24 hour period. There was no "3rd edit". You need to read WP:3RR. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Should I make an award or something for the Rehab Wikiproject? Here's a little something I've made as an example.

One cruise ship
Reason

--Abce2|AccessDenied 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like a graduation diploma? Maybe a good idea, but I'd wait until the project actually starts working. We're still in the beginning phases. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defend free speech

Here's a box for free use:


Sense About Science
is defending author Simon Singh
from
chiropractic attempt
to chill free speech.
_________
Add your signature to the thousands of others.

editor and admin

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'm not really much of a Wikipedia editor or administrator since I am busy in the real world and I have not been spending much of my online time at Wikipedia for the past few years. Thanks for your patience as I stick my nose into difficult wiki problems that other more dedicated Wikipedians have sweated over while I've been away. I appreciate all the help that has been provided to me to help me "get up to speed" with the "Dr.Jhingade" situation. "If I at times seemed irritated" <-- I guess I'm just thick skinned and/or clueless because I was not bothered by any of your comments. I grew up in a culture where it is expected that one's friends will feel free to challenge your assumptions. I sometimes ask tough questions of other Wikipedians and I count on other Wikipedians to keep an eye on me and question my actions...particularly when I am exploring an unpopular POV. I'm really a wiki-coward and when I get irritated with a wiki problem I go away and find a less stressful and more fun online activity. I actually have a large amount of respect for people like Georgewilliamherbert who work hard to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. I hope you agree that Wikipedia is stronger when we carefully examine our assumptions and methods. As a scientist, I tend to get into an analytical mode where I try to understand problems. I'm not very good at understanding interpersonal relations, so it is not unusual for people who have good intuition about people to get frustrated with my cluelessness and my struggle to comprehend things that most normal people more easily understand. "could probably have worded some of my comments better" <-- I'd prefer that people speak honestly and correct any problems that arise rather than remain quiet in a cautious attempt to avoid imperfect comments. I like it when people say what is on their mind...it can save a lot of time. Please feel free to be blunt with me and set me straight when you see me going down a wrong path. I tend to test many strange hypotheses and I eventually throw most of them away. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&oldid=295313378"