User talk:Michaelbluejay

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 04:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic realism

You wrote [1]: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to leave this message but I could not find any other way to message you on this system. I requested that the "Aesthetic realism" article be locked and you did lock it, but unfortunately locked it to a vandalized version. The members of this group kept excising my addition that many former members consider it to be a cult, and the link to my site about it, [1] (http://michaelbluejay.com/x/). I think it's important to tell both sides of the story, of course. I've never removed any of their ridiculous gushing praise about their philosophy and their leader, I've just added my own very short comment. But they routinely go in there and delete it, since they want no public criticism. Actually, unless this changes, they don't have to do so any more, because their sabatoged version is now locked into place. I hope you will be able to add the other side back in. I added it to the External Links section but I expect they'll take that out any minute, if they haven't already. Oh, my username is MichaelBluejay. You can contact me directly at AR(at)michaelbluejay.com if you need to. Thank you very much for your help.

It was not locked by me, I do not have such rights (but maybe I asked admins to lock it). I remember I reverted someone who vandalised the page with text "Aesthetic realism is a cult", giving any futher explanation. I know nothing about the topic, I only do clean up after vandalism.

If you can contribute, please formulate it first on the Talk page, trying to reach some consensus (just one link or shout is almost guaranteed to get reverted). Usual practice is to have section like "Criticism of ...". Quite often this process works.

If that fails the article may be put under request for coordination (but this is slow, bureaucratic process with long waiting lines).

I also noted that the narrative quality of the article isn't the highest. You may rewrite it and put your version on e.g. Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Version_from_michaelbluejay or on your Talk page. This version may serve as starting point for possible disputes.

Pavel Vozenilek 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Thanks for your comment, but I don't think I can claim to have rescued the article. As you'll see from my comment on the AR talk page, I've followed your lead in giving up on trying to make it a good article.

I'm curious, though, about the size of the group. Is there any hard evidence anywhere? I would've thought it was bigger than the 120 that (I think) you estimated). My perspective may be bent, though, because I live in Manhattan, where I gather they're strongest. For a while I patronized a bicycle shop (Conrad's) where the "Victim of the Press" buttons were to be seen. JamesMLane 06:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Update on Aesthetic Realism article

I was on holiday w/o inet access so I didn't reply immediatelly. I do not know much about the topic - I am from Czech Republic and just have watch on the article because of some vandal long ago - so I am not the best person to make any judgements here. If its not possible to come up to some consesus meditation commitee could be used. Pavel Vozenilek 10:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

I didn't find the note on my talk page that you mentioned. There may have been a problem when posting: would you mind posting it again? – ClockworkSoul 15:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Gentlemen,

I'm sending the same message to both Aperey and Michaelbluejay as a coutesy to let both of you know that I scanned through the talk pages in the small amount of time I have had available to me the last few days, and I've noticed a few points that I think that we can agree on. I know that both of you have very strong feelings about Aesthetic Realism, and that you both want the article to be as fair as possible.

Just a couple of quick things that you should both know about the mediation process:

• If you like, either of you may choose to contact an advocate from the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates to lend you a hand, publicly or privately, through this mediation.
• You may contact me at any time through email (clockworksoul AT optonline.net), and all such emails are entirely confidential.
• The first step in most disputes is to revert the page back to a state before the dispute started. If I do that, it will be sometime on Wednesday evening (Eastern Time).

To start things off, I would like to ask everybody involved for a couple of things. First, it would be very helpful if you would please send me an email, clarifying your position and points, as they relate to you and the article (not the other party). Second, it may be best if both of you disengage from the article for a couple of days: continuing a disagreement on the talk pages usually makes the mediation process much more difficult.

That's all for now. Again, please feel free to contact me at any time. – ClockworkSoul 22:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Just letting you know I'd replied on my talk page, in case you weren't watching it. - Outerlimits 20:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I thought you may be interested, and wanted to make you aware of this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arnold Perey - Jonathunder 02:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

AR

Several editors are attempting to build a compromise version of the AR article which will be NPOV and stable. As you've been actively involved in editing, and have a distinct POV to contribute, you're invited to participate. Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp Cheers, -Willmcw 21:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Editing your own comments

I recommend against removing your comments about Aperey as the author of the passages you disputed. You're right that it's a kind of revisionism; specifically, it would leave his response dangling with no antecedent, making him look stupid without justification. What some editors do in a situation like that is to strike out their own previous comment, with or without the insertion of a substitution (e.g., here you might add "TS" in each place). This preserves the record of what was originally said but makes clear that you've withdrawn the statement you previously posted. You can do it by inserting the <strike> tag at the beginning of what you're striking out and the </strike> tag at the end. JamesMLane 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Critical Mass

Hi! Just to let you know that I've added a long and rambling reply to your question at Critical Mass. I hope that there is something useful in there. JeremyA (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I decided to try the Critical Mass page without the list. I think that it is possible that it can be exclude on the grounds of verifiability:how can I, or any other individual editor, verify that all these rides still occur? Instead I have made a note in the external links section of the two web pages that carry lists. If no one complains then I am happy to leave the page as it is now. JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

I noticed your mention that you knew Mike Godwin. You might be interested to know that he's edited and discussed the Godwin's law article. JamesMLane 01:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aesthetic Realism so that we may begin the mediation. -- Essjay · Talk 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please start mediation already. -Willmcw 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with that! I've left you a note on my talk page, but would add I doubt some of the superfluous facts Samivel just added. (Kranz, Harris, van Griethuysen, and Shields appear on David Susskind together with four representatives of the Gay Liberation Front. Is that true? They may have appeared on the same show, in separate segments rather than together? If they appeared together, how did AR censor them out of their transcript so effectively? Ah, well, that should only be the biggest error! - Outerlimits 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Some examples of changes that might be negociated...User:Outerlimits/draft - Outerlimits 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The transcript was of the Jonathan Black interview, not the Susskind interview--isn't that so? Nobody altered a thing.--samivel 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hypothesis

I added my edit summary (accusing the Wikipedia article of inaccuracy) before I read it, going on your claim. It turns out that you misrepresented it; the testability is specific to a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses about angels are not scientific, thus don't need to be testable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Veganism

This is precisely why I had a cleanup tag on the article. An anonymous user posting from a dynamic IP range has been adding nonsense to this article for a long time. Thanks for removing the junk. Unfortunately, the anon will just add it back in. --Viriditas 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

comments

i can't edit the vegan page cause i'm new, but i liked your changes. good job! JamieJones 21:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your lighting addition

thanks for your good addition to the lighting article...i wanted to put this in and didnt have a reference at hand...do you have a reference for this myth versus reality thanks Anlace 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

yes i do understand the phenomenon and have some publications where ive measured it, but i was hoping to find a more independent journal article or textbook...lik you i didnt want to self promote with my own publication :}, best regards Anlace 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the thougnt, about your adding the ref, ill have to dig it out ...its not on line...its just in a dusty technical article somewhere in my archives cheers Anlace 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages

When pages are deleted, they don't appear in contributions, as they no longer exist. You could check the deletion log, but in fact I came across them while patrolling New Pages, and they were all created within minutes of each other on the day that I deleted them (when I placed the message on her Talk page, warning her about it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cult suicide

I removed the section you added to Cult suicide because it did not meet the criteria of the article:

• Cult suicide is that phenomenon by which some religious groups, in this context often referred to as "cults", have led to their membership committing suicide. Sometimes all members commit suicide at the same time and place. Groups which have done this include, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Peoples Temple (Jonestown), and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. In other cases certain denominations apparently supported mass suicide, but did not necessarily encourage all members to do it. Examples here include Filippians, the Taiping, and a few others.

The criteria might apply to Baird, but there is not verifiable info to prove that it does. It certainly does not apply to Siegel, who cannot be thought of as a member of the group, but rather as its leader. -Will Beback 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization

Why would a internal wiki link the generanl accepted governing body of SEO be removed as Spam? It seems 100% relevant to me and an important link for newer folks that may be interested to find that such and organiztion does exist. I'm adding it back in at this point. -Jcsquardo 12:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

When you revert linkspam, be sure to tag the user's talk page with a spam warning. More info (standard invite): Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. ~~~~ Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gambling

Hey there, Michaelbluejay. We're organizing a WikiProject Gambling, and you're invited. Come on over (if you're interested) and add your name to the list of participants. It will be fun.Rray 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

For example, if an air conditioner provides 5000 BTU of cooling, and has an SEER rating of 10, then on average over the cooling season it will consume 500 watt-hours of electric power (5000 divided by 10).

This cannot be right. A 5000 BTU AC uses about 600 watts, and thus will consume 500 watt-hours in *less than an hour*, not *over the whole cooling season*! -MichaelBluejay 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, according to the Department of Energy website, the correct formula is the BTU's OVER THE WHOLE SEASON, not the BTU's per hour. I'll edit the article accordingly. -MichaelBluejay 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I think you are mis-interpreting what you read. The sentence you quoted is saying that the 500 watt-hr rate of power use is an average hourly energy use during the cooling season. It does not mean the total energy use during the entire cooling season.

Perhaps reading [2] and scrolling down a bit to the definition given there may help you understand.

However, since you mis-intrepreted what was meant, perhaps others will also do so. Can you suggest a re-wording for that sentence? - mbeychok 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Shame not a Reliable Source, per wp:External_links

Again removing Hall of Shame web link. This web link doe snot meet wikipedia standards. In this case, there are many reasons:

• Nikki Craft put the web link here. I respect her, and her desire to do good. However, she is an activist, and has an agendum. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link" She does not have a NPOV, which is why she is a great (well known, and effective) activist.

• Second, same link as above "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. " I have done an in-depth look at the article, and it is in fact a worrisome article that makes one think. But, it is a long an attack by Ms. Craft, based on her personal experience, and she gives numerous anecdotal data. None of it is backed by research. Also, the people that she has mentioned she claims are pedophiles. No causal link between nudity or naturism and pedophilia has been suggested by anyone other than Ms. craft, or a subject of any research. So, in fact, the site has factually inaccurate material, and is not considered to be a reliable source.

Please don't add it back in again, or I will need to involve an administrator to help resolve the issue.

Atom 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael, after reviewing your web page, and your Wikipedia profile, you seem like a fine fellow. I'd appreciate it if you could just wait for other input from the RfC before you add the link back in. If you read wp:EL, and wp:Reliable sources it might help to clarify things. Regards, Atom 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Criticism of the clothes free movement‎ , you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Michael, I am trying very hard to understand your position. Every time I make a change to Criticism of the clothes free movement‎ , or nikki craft you revert my changes. I've stated in too much detail the reasons and wikipedia policy behind it. I asked nicely for you to stop, and then gave you a warning. I'm sorry that you perceive a legitimate warning as a threat. I'm only asking you to stop reverting legitimate work by others. Atom 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please contact me

Michael, I've been trying to e-mail you with three different addresses (including the java one from your personal website). Please contact me if you have an e-mail address of mine or write on my talk page about the best way to get a hold of you. I can also call you you, I have Vonage.

User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the clothes free movement

Hey Michaelbluejay. Thanks for working to help make Wikipedia a better reference work; your efforts are appreciated!

I just wanted to state my opinion that edit wars usually are not very productive; it may be a better idea to see if you can come to an agreement on the talk page. And be careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours because of WP:3RR.

Once again, thanks for helping out Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- Where 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Music articles

Both the general guideline Wikipedia:External links and the very specific semi-guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/External linking discourage linking to fan sites. However, as you point out, good research requires using more than one source. External links are just there for readers to find more information. Sources are different. They provide the information we use for the article and we should have as many reliable ones as are available. The problem is that fansites are not normally relaible sources. Sometimes they'll have a copy of a reliable source, like a review (illegally) copied from a magazine. For a group like ABBA it's possible that some fans have banded together to create such a high quality site that it'd count. If so it could be used as a reference even if it weren't appropriate for an external link.

Regarding another point - previous consensus is not binding on current editors. We shouldn't just ignore good arguments from the past but if a consensus of current editors feel differently they aren't obliged to abide by a past decision. If you feel strongly about including a link you can try to rally support for it. You've already discovered how few responses RfCs can get. You could also drop a line over at the Music project, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rock_music#Conflict_resolution, but I'm doubting you'd get a warm response there either.

Another option with Wikipedia is simply trying to outlast those with conflicting opinions. Even editors who are quite involved for sime time may wonder off after a while. So if there's opposition to the link now there might not be in six months or a year. Unless you're in a hurry I suppose the easiest thing to do is keep an eye on the article and try again when the time seems right. I hope that helps. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit to soy protein

Michaelbluejay, I reverted your change to soy protein[3] simply because there are enough reliable sources to back up the statement that soy is a complete protein, meaning that As per WP:VERIFY, the statement is a valid inclusion into the article. Thanks. Yankees76 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Craft

I removed a comment of yours

On Atom's talk because the tone will only serve to inflame the situation. If you replace it, I'll do nothing. I did not remove it in any "official" capacity and am not at all suggesting any "consequences" if you don't listen to this advice, but please do listen: Use calmer language. Be "nicer" if you can. even if the other person doesn't seem to you to be being nice at all, don't fall to what you see as their level. We all want the article to be the best it can be while still conforming to the encyclopedia's standards, correct? - brenneman 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)