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]

Your Personal Attack

Personal attacks, such as calling someone a "liar" is against Wikipedia policy and generally uncivil and totally not cool. Stop. 81.117.200.27 18:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

There was a edit conflict regarding the talk derek smart page, and I have inadvertently deleted one of your comments I think in the process of trying to clear it up. My apologies and I would be gratefull if you could put your comment back. Sorry for the trouble.Kerr avon 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. JBKramer 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – Clockwork Soul 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Calling me a racist because I disagree with you on deflation is not cool. 81.117.200.27 16:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no such thing. JBKramer 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Attention is invited to

[2] Stop accusing me of sockpuppetry. 81.117.200.27 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will request whatever I decide to request. Please respond to my request for sources on the talk page of the article in question. JBKramer 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that you will resort to slander, personal attacks, and outright dishonest activity to achieve your stated goals? You must be extremely immature to resort to such tactics. Stop accusing me of being a racist as well, or I will be forced to take further action. Furthermore, sources have been provided, perhaps you should actually look at the article instead of wasting your time requesting pointless check users. 81.117.200.27 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such statements. JBKramer 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have, and you just did. I'm watching you, don't harass me because we disagree. Your general character is well known throughout the community, as well as your lack of couth. 81.117.200.27 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Please provide the requested sources. JBKramer 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they are there right in front of you. Open your eyes, for you are being blind. Perhaps you're blind due to your own arrogance. 81.117.200.27 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]