User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Ada Hotel

You had deleted the page about Ada Hotel as advertisment. But it is not as it is just a description of a hotel, like Kempinski Palace Hotel (Portorož) or any other. Brief description without commercial details. Just to help people to see more information about the hotel. The page is done in a proper form using hotel info icon, logo, etc. I think this page has the right to be on Wikipedia. Natalia Spatar (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Logging

I added your ARBPS notifications to the log (yes, there was some confusion back in the heady days of yore when the present system was still being developed, resulting in the log being recorded at a different case). I am quite clearly WP:INVOLVED here, so you should fix the log if it was not your intention to give formal notice to those three editors under the provisions of that case. And thanks for stepping in. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, I hadn't noticed that "notifications" section already existed on the other case page. It sure is a confusing set-up. Yes, I did mean these to be "official" notifications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg keeps trying

See my comment here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and fringe

Please, I used to work at the department of Neuroscience at Brown University. Opinions there when asked about the many web postings vs the official government line that aspartame is safe mostly questioned the funding that advanced the view that aspartame is safe. There are many medical research articles claiming aspartame is dangerous. I can provide them. This is not pseudoscience this is not Fringe. It is a minority belief. It should be covered as such. Yes the majority belief says aspartame is safe but there is a minority that believes it is dangerous.Arydberg (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that it's a minority view, in fact an extreme minority view held only by a small handfull (less than "five" fingers?) of doctors and scientists, most of whom are retired and self-publishing their own weird POV, some of which are also pseudoscientific, fringe and even illegal quackery. (You see, people who are odd enough to hold one fringe view often hold many other fringe, pseudoscientific and quackish views, and they often cross the line into what is actually illegal.)

There is no controversy in scientific circles at present, with the lone exception of Soffritti, whose self-published work at his own Ramazzini Institute has been severely criticized. No, the real controversy died out a long time ago. All of the activism and publicity that exists is internet activism fueled by Betty Martini and a couple retired doctors, and their thousands of lay syncophants and SPAs who edit here. It has basically created a situation extremely similar to Delusional parasitosis ("aspartame disease"), where the effect of Martini's activism through the internet is similar to this: Morgellons#Role of the Internet. In fact, that section might serve as a model to use here, but in a modified form. That's what's happening in the real world.

Since the article never mentions any of these descriptions (pseudoscience, fringe, minority), this thread is a straw man, but maybe we could still describe it as a minority view. The problem with doing that is that it gives undue weight and legitimacy to it. A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitisimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it? I'd like to hear what Future Perfect thinks. To be accurate, we would have to qualify "minority" by mentioning exactly how few ("a small minority of 4-5 (mostly retired) doctors and scientists"). That would be a pain, because it would mean we'd have to then give them undue weight compared to the enormous silence in the literature. WP:FRINGE then comes into the picture for how to deal with such minority views.

Arydberg, are you really "A. Rydberg" (your real name is plastered all over the internet, but I'm not interested in outing you), or are you Christine Lydon, MD, or have you worked with her at Brown U.? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

Regarding your comment here, and in light of my following reply here, could you clarify whether you were merely stating your opinion or whether you were explaining policy as you understand it? As I write in my reply I'm disposed to assume you know this a whole heck of a lot better than I do—and I would certainly not mind getting out of digging up details or new versions of all those images—but your comment did not make clear whether you were opining on what ought be sufficient or on what you know will have been sufficient when we get to FAC. --Xover (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I am far more familiar with image standards from the perspective of deletion processes than from the perspective of FAC discussions – standards quite probably are higher in the latter, so maybe it was a bit rash of me to dismiss the need for more careful sourcing. "Best practice" would probably mean having both types, and if you want to be on the safe side it might be worth going the extra mile, but honestly I'm not sure how they tend to handle that at FAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we'll fix what we can without too much effort, and then try to find someone that does image reviews at FAC to ask for advice. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gjorgji Pulevski

Hello. I found out here that you have made an analysis of the usages of the names "Georgi Pulevski" and "Gjorgji Pulevski" on Google Books. However, today it is not like that, since Gjorgji Pulevski is more used on Google Books and Google in general. Should we think of renaming the article? Also, you might be interested in this useless and stupid discussion here since I quoted you, which I think you do not mind. This is just informational, best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tone

Hi FP, there's no call to respond that I'm asking a "silly" question when I ask about the relationship between the image policies and the unwritten understanding that all our policies be applied with common sense. I don't recall you finding me silly when I was spending my time to help you with Deucalionite, so I'd be grateful if you'd spend a little time trying to see my perspective now that it's me who has the problem. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but respectful disagreement would be appreciated, rather than dismissing me as though I'm a halfwit. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding passive aggressiveness to you rhetorical strategy doesn't improve your position either. It was a leading question, and it was a silly trick to employ it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

I was wondering about the warning you gave me. I haven't edited on the aspartame controversy talk page in almost two weeks. The last comment that I made said that if a phrase was not in a reference then it should not be in the article with that reference used to support that phrase. How is this pushing a fringe POV? And why this warning now after not posting for so long? Jmpunit (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The warning was not directed to any one particular posting, but to a long term pattern of editing. It came to my attention through a recent report at ANI which dealt with the overall activity by several editors on that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider this a very serious matter. Please be specific in your accusations. Jmpunit (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MoreThings can probably be unblocked

I think 48 hours was probably excessive given that he said in his last edit that he was going to let it drop. "You've asked me to drop this, and I will."[1] Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see this is moot! I've been busy the last couple of days. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A little help

I am unexperienced in license issues regarding commons, but I have created this from this. I intend to use it as a layout for different periods of Albanian history. Am I right with license tags? If not please help. Regards Aigest (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)