User talk:SmithBlue: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:42, 5 December 2016

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

/Archive 1 User talk:SmithBlue/Archive 1

MINIMAL editing activity occuring

WIki-life is very reduced at preent - ~~hopwe to have time again in near-medium term~~ Please feel free to leave a message - ~~I'll get round to it eventually.~~ It could be years before I read it though.SmithBlue (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per my closure of the ANI discussion: You are hereby topic-banned from the topic of AIDS, broadly construed--so broadly that certainly articles like Brian Martin (social scientist) fall under it. The topic ban is indefinite and may be appealed a year from now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SmithBlue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of I Liq Chuan

The article I Liq Chuan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Previously AfD'd article that needs to get substantially better or be deleted. Most of the sources look non-independent and the body text is very sparse.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 WIki-life is very reduced at preent - <s>hopwe to have time again in near-medium term</s>
 Please feel free to leave a message - <s>I'll get round to it eventually.</s> It could be years before I read it though.[[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) [[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 06:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-== WP - blah ==
+== Topic ban ==
-The less time I spend here the happier I am.
-Good luck to you all and get out as soon as you can. Go dancing. Or play music. Meditate. Agitate. [[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
+Per my [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=711960322&oldid=711959539 closure of the ANI discussion]: You are hereby topic-banned from the topic of AIDS, broadly construed--so broadly that certainly articles like [[Brian Martin (social scientist)]] fall under it. The topic ban is indefinite and may be appealed a year from now. Thank you. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-==='''On BLP violations'''===
+== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! ==
-If you can show verifiable content from RS that Person B, whether pro or anti whatever, is an ice addict psychopath who owns a pedophile brothel and is a ISIS supporter, then go ahead and write the article. Just ask and I'll support you.
+{{Ivmbox|Hello, SmithBlue. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
-If you have strong feelings around the subject and you have to misrepresent sources, use non-RS ranting blogs and OR to create an attack piece that matches your view of the subject then either you are supported by WP community standards or you not.
+The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
-I do wish that it was obvious to everyone whether you are supported by WP community standards. <s>So far you have been supported by WP community inaction. Especially the on-going inaction of administrators.</s>
-After many weeks of inaction things did get fixed up. But many people will have been put off WP by then. And much time and energy wasted. And the naive readers of the BLP misled. And the Disruptive Editing that produced the attack piece is still unaddressed. As is the training that co-editor-activists recieved in DE. And the disruption to relationships between editors goes on. [[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
+If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
-===integrity of system===
+|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
-See ANI: "WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me."
+<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/21&oldid=750582913 -->
+==  Proposed deletion of [[I Liq Chuan]] ==
+[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]
+The article [[I Liq Chuan]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
-===Science, anti-psuedoscience action and anti-science: a continuum ===
+:'''Previously [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Liq Chuan|AfD]]'d article that needs to get substantially better or be deleted. Most of the sources look non-independent and the body text is very sparse.'''
-Science is a method of enquiry.
-The current understandings of sciences are always provisional.
-Science depends on social space for enquiry. (Enquiries that are not given social space do not happen. For the most part this is good. Who wants Nazi or Japanese WWII science experiments happening?)
+While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
-Action against pseudo-science, in terms of identifying it, challenging it's sillinesses, educating as to the actual effects of the belief in the pseudoscience, refusing to let it masquarade as real science, and, using it as a foil to educate in critical thinking, is well placed. It is very instructive to present the histories of how theories have been investigated and the different views expressed about them on their way to being undestood in the current best provisional understanding. Jenkins in "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology" does exactly this.
+You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:I Liq Chuan|the article's talk page]].
-When  activism becomes mobbing, and seeks to starve refuted scientific theories of social space, it is functioning to prevent enquiry and is treating science's provisional understandings as dogma. Examples of scientific hypothesises, etc,  that have been rejected and then, because there was social space in which enquiry could occur, years later been accepted as provisionally correct include; lateral gene transfer, the germ theory of disease, continental drift. It's arguable that the length of time that it took for germ theory to be re-accepted, and the many lives lost as a result, was directly related to the hostility that greeted it's initial proposal and hence the loss of social space in which it could be scientifically enquired into.
+Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
-Such anti-pseudoscience mobbing is anti-science. [[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 06:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-===Why Civil-POV pushing is an inaccurate portrayal of my editing pre-2011===
-Talking about editing from years ago so working on my memory of my ethos, approach, frustrations and motivation.
-* My aim has been to present accurate information that is RS, Weight, Verify. I may have failed at this a few times. The Balkan incident for one stands out spectalulary. But no lives were lost as a result.
-* On sensitive areas of fringe topics I did not edit the main page unless I could get (informed) concensus on the talk page.
-As to my post-2012 edits - none of them have had any aim, or functional effect, what-so-ever, towards pushing any POV other than NPOV. Claims otherwise that are not reasonably argued and clearly evidenced are a sign that misportrayal is occuring. The functional effect of such mis-portrayal is to preserve a power and social structure that is signfiicantly different to that described in WP's self-description. This goes to the integrity of WP.  [[User:SmithBlue|SmithBlue]] ([[User talk:SmithBlue#top|talk]]) 06:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)