User talk:JBKramer

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JBKramer/Archive/Dec06. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Your edits to Sexually transmitted disease

Your change to the page Sexually transmitted disease was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) .

WP:LIVING

I have reverted this edit [1] on Eric Lerner. It is very important for you to understand WP:LIVING, also known as WP:BLP, which mandates careful following of the main Wikipedia policies verifiability and neutrality especially with respect to articles on living people, like Eric Lerner. What you added is unsourced negative information that does not exist in sources: no one has written enough about Lerner to make claims like that. Mango juice^talk 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you bring up that paragraph because it specifically condemns the edit of yours that I reverted. Go look at that quote from Jimbo again. What he is saying there is that theories someone espouses shouldn't necessarily make it into the encyclopedia. The separation between ones that should and ones that shouldn't is whether or not they've been published. Right? Well, Lerner's theories are real and have received significant coverage. However, your theory that Lerner's work has been ignored by the mainstream community remains something that you conclude, based on no sources any one has presented. It may be true, but if you can't source it, your theory is just like the physics crankery Jimbo is talking about. It has no place on the encyclopedia without sourcing. And while we're at it, I advise you to reexamine your attitude about Lerner. You may think he's a "physics crank" but (1) he's well-published and his theories are notable, and (2) regardless of anything else, he is a public figure and deserves fair and careful treatment. Mango juice^talk 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't object to any edit other than the one I mention above. Mango juice^talk 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting on Wikipedia? If so, show me and I'll be happy to get involved with his behavior as a Wikipedia user. Otherwise, I really don't care. Mango juice^talk 15:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Roy Lopez Out Break on Deflation

It's his style and favorite ISP.

I got a threatening phone call from him again a few days ago stating he has more wikipedia accounts. Proceed carefully this troll or trolls also engages in harassing behavior IRL.

Stirling Newberry 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, and thank you for understanding my answers to the questions!

Atlant 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Knowlingly introducing incorrect information into articles is Vandalism. Please stop. 81.117.200.27 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]