User talk:Phil153

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

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Bravo Location Rentals

Phil, relating to the Bravo Location Rentals conflict of interest. I am an employee of the organisation in question but in no other way owner. I thought it would be adequate but not out of line. Thank you for the explanantion. BruB (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Will the tags ever be remove on top of the page or is it for ever tagged. And yes, a pretty good place to work. lol BruB (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Greer

Sorry to find our discussion on Greer's bio deleted. You have asked if you can take a look at the documents. You have to go to the Disclosure Project Homepage and sign up. Once you have a user name and password you can log in to "Briefing Documents Special Access Area" (link on the top of the homepage) where you can read the mentioned documents.I-netfreedOm (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I archived it since it was kind of off topic (WP:NOTFORUM, my fault). Thanks for the info, appreciated. :) Phil153 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Prominence

You had commented on WP:ORN about the description of Larry Sanger as a "prominent critic of Wikipedia". I felt silly taking the text to WP:ORN in the first place, but it has come up again. I've got to say I've found the disagreements over that article incredibly frustrating. Rvcx (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. The reliably sourced words closest critic, most vociferous critic and one of the most outspoken critics define prominence, and prominence properly encaptures these. One descriptive and accurate word is a long way from OR.

I'm writing up another article so I don't have time to help. But since they're insisting on a source for every word, my best advice would be to use one of the words that is sourced (vociferous, outspoken), and they might realize that "prominent" isn't so bad. Maybe a call for more attention on the noticeboard on the specific issue of "prominent" might help. Phil153 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo pseudoscientists

When I first started trying to edit articles on medicinal uses for plants into factual encyclopedia articles, any information I inserted that did not loudly proclaim in every sentence, "Pseudoscience is crap," was reverted. You're right, I don't edit much in the area of fringe articles on Wikipedia because when I tried to turn the fringe articles in my area of expertise into factual articles about the historical use of herbs in various cultures and discuss any scientific validity for current use/nonuse I was chased away by the anti-fringers. So, instead of editing in my area I edit general botany articles. By the way, I've been asked a couple of times, based on my Wikipedia articles in my area to contribute to books or journals. Attacking my real knowledge and research abilities has increased the incidence of pseudoscience on Wikipedia, because now, no one is creating factual articles out of fringe crap. This is what the anti-pseudoscience crackpots have created: an atmosphere of hostility for anyone who doesn't carry their banner loudly, and that includes hostility toward real scientists. Most scientists are far more interested in other things, like real research, than in devotion to battering down fake science at the lowest level. High level fake science will always be fought by real scientists, but low level fake science needs only a precisely and accurately worded fact here or there, not loud banners. --KP Botany (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Readers are best served by a truly neutral approach, not with one which attempts to protect them against "fringe." If given balanced and complete information, properly organized, readers are generally quite capable of good understanding. Hypertext was my interest twenty years ago, and, with it, Wikipedia has room for all that can be verified with reliable source, regardless of the spurious arguments sometimes raised about "undue weight," which would properly have to do with single articles, not with the whole project. --Abd (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to get some positive feedback after I've already given up. --KP Botany (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from Sloanlier

Phil:

I received a message from you regarding numerous deletions of contributions I made to an article on Jack Weiss and the need for proper verification regarding negative comments on living persons.

With respect to all but one of the paragraphs I authored, I'll provide you with verification that should be consistent with Wikipedia's published guidelines.

With respect to the first such paragraph, I already cited a case number. I'll make the cite even more extensive.

With respect to the last paragraph I authored, although it is true, the number of documents I would have to cite to satisfy your guidelines would lead to the article tripling or quadrupling in size. I'll forego that activity.

[March 3, 2009 5:50 a.m. UTC]].

Regarding Footnote 3, on KNBC TV and the Casden contributions, the following constitutes additional corroborative information:

On January 13, 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Weiss campaign had received $5,000 in laundered contributions from Casden Properties and had chosen to keep these funds rather than reimburse the State of California or the City of Los Angeles.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/13/local/me-launder13

March 3, 2009 6:22 a.m. UTC

I just viewed your last of several modifications, which strike me as inarguably impartial. I hope that your work is left alone.

Again, thank you very much for your guidance in this matter and all the editting you undertook.

Sloanlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloanlier (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of comment had been struck out.

In case you hadn't noticed, re your comment "crap like this" at Talk:Cold fusion: part of the comment to which you gave a diff had already been struck out when you mentioned it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the compliment, and I also very much appreciate your setting the record straight here. It's a pleasure working with you, too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I want to congratulate you for attempting to talk some sense into User:Orangemarlin. It is very important that, when an editor is identifiable with some Wikipedia faction, such as the anti-fringe contingent, that other editors, who might be otherwise be seen as sympathetic, or at least neutral, lead the efforts to bring an editor into line with cooperative process. When someone, rightly or wrongly, is seen as being on the "other side," warnings will be disregarded as just more attempts to "win," and the situation may just get worse. The argument OM was making that NPOV trumps incivility is preposterous. It is not necessary to be uncivil to firmly seek NPOV; the real danger, we often fall into the trap, lies in the fact that we judge NPOV most effectively through consensus. If the community is significantly divided on some content issue, it's quite likely because true NPOV hasn't been found yet, and incivility damages the cooperative process by which we might find it, and reduces Wikipedia to a set of battles that will never end. If ScienceApologist's friends had been more active in restraining him, instead of, too often, cheering him on when he was uncivil and uncooperative, he might still be standing up for his beliefs. My view is that we need "civil POV-pushers." They will keep us honest and neutral, for someone with a strong POV functions as a sensitive POV detector for text in the opposite direction.

When my friends warn me, I know I'd better put on the brakes, slow down, take a deep breath, and reconsider it all. Fortunately, I have friends who will do this. Actually, I assume that everyone here is my friend ... but some I've learned to trust, as to the cogency of their judgment, a bit more than others. --Abd (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your criticism of my addition to the Jack Weiss page, and for your information I don't work for him. I just think they is more good that is not being said and believe that too much negative spin is added hourly by the same person with a true conflict of interest. I'm interested in the truth and want people to see the GOOD and the BAD. Fortunehunter69 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Fortunehunter69 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)fortunehunter69

Gevork Nazaryan

Dear Phil, sorry if this is in the wrong place since I am not good at editing.

Thank you for the note about the entry, the only reason I edited it myself someone is because told me that the page needed more biography info. Can you please tell me if I can pass this information to someone who can post it. Perhaps yourself, since I cannot think of an active user now that I can pass this biographical note, once again I simply added recent information about me and my publications.

Thank you very much in advance, Respectfully, Gevork Nazaryan --Arman77 talk 04:09, 15 March 2009

Thanks

I wanted to thank you, not only for your support of the idea of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, but for taking the time to write out a rationale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. I do invest a lot of time in copyright cleanup on Wikipedia, and I appreciate the encouragement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the least I can do. You really do an amazing job, and it's such an important part of Wikipedia. I'm not a lawyer but even I can see that handling this badly can really make a mess down the road, not only in the press/academia but from a legal/lawsuit perspective from any of numerous parties, especially as the project becomes more visible and gets larger and larger donations.

The good thing about a project like this is that people like me who aren't lawyers can find work to do. As it is now with little direction it's all a bit intimidating to get involved. I'll watch the project but let me know if I can help with anything. Phil153 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm hoping that the project will simplify the task for everyone. I agree with you about the potential ramifications for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

MEDRS sources

Hi, my apologies if you felt I was 'piling it on'. It is true that I felt that this diff was a sign of poor judgment, but I welcome learning from my mistakes. Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population The Effect of Aspartame on Migraine Headache Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins. Perhaps you can tell me how I can tell that these studies are problematic? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Weiss page

Phil153,

It seems that Sloanlier is at it again with adding poorly-sourced or un-sourced attacks/criticisms just before election day. The runoff election is tomorrow, Tuesday May 19th. If you recall, he waited until March 2nd and 3rd (election day was March 3rd) to place his un-sourced attacks. I have explained, in my edits, why I removed the criticisms that were unsourced.

Please help.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.166.64 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Phil, I've never run into you anywhere on the project that I am aware of but I just noticed your comment here and it is appreciated. Your comment at the end of this discussion. I am glad to see that someone noticed what I felt about all of the accusations thrown at me. You nailed my feelings about this. Personally I think this case has been a disaster for all. But thank you for at least noticing. Sorry I didn't respond when you posted it but I didn't see it with all the noise going on. Thanks again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad it'll be over soon, it's a lot of needless disruption that will never achieve anything. Best wishes for your recovery. :) Phil153 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Phil, I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the cold fusion article, since I sometimes feel all alone over there. I think things will quiet down for a while, at least until December, when a certain person will be allowed to post again. Olorinish (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)