User talk:Avb/Archive6

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, please bring it up on the active talk page.

You may like to consider contributing your thoughts at Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi. I find opposing editors (Kkrystian) often lacking in sources and knowledge of Wikipedia policy, which means that I have to revert some edits and then indulge in long explanations about why my actions were justified. It would help to have a third opinion like the one you provide at Talk: Sathya Sai Baba. Now that it is the Xmas break, I have some time on my hands and may be able to get around to improving both these articles and expand them, reliably-sourced of course. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the direction on the talk page. So if I get this correctly cited text must reflect the overall POV of the whole citation. Is that correct? Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes. But note that WP:WEIGHT applies to the overall balance found in the available acceptable sources, the overall POV found in specific sources, and specific views found in parts of a source. If an article is neutral (complies with the NPOV principle), picking and choosing from a source may inject bias. A biased article may be made worse or improved by selective quoting. In cases like this, the approach found in SA's #1 version may be a good approach will make sure that the addition does not change the current balance. There's much more to be said, but I think this covers the basics. Avb 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the article and it is mostly neutral and then critical. It reviews what is on the site and then makes some critical comments. Perhaps you can help us write text that reflects the review. Anthon01 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this to afd in case the subject is notable enough for an article. Maybe it can be rewritten/balanced? Anyway, I wanted to let you know so you can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gropegate. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been a wonderful person to me with all your help and understanding of limited capabilities. You promised long ago to help me and watch my back for mistakes and help me understand things here in Wiki world. You have done that and more. You are very patient and so I just want to wish you and yours the best health and a very happy holiday season. Hopefully 2008 will be good to us! Happy editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make your opinion clear on Talk:Quackwatch? --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? Is there a place were I can find out whether someone is an admin of not? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding on my talk page and for the support on Blackamoor's talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, from my talk:

Disingenious

I take exception to this diffless edit. The "disingenious" remark is baseless. I am completely uninvolved in the dispute with Ronz about which you posted at WQA and I am almost uninvolved in the QW article (as anyone will tell you who has been around on that article's talk page for the last couple of months I generally avoid it like the plague due to its bizarre editing atmosphere). The rest of this edit only shows you don't know what WP:DR is. You may want to remove the edit (the discussion being closed does not mean you can't retract anything). Avb 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remark applies to your prior collaboration with various of the disputants (particularly Ronz) and others involved (such as ScienceApologist <unrelated mantra removed by Avb>), on the basis of my having misconstrued your remark ("almost" univolved) to have been something of a concession on that point (but you meant the article, not the disputants). Since there are a million (whatever) editors, I'd consider "an outside third party" to be someone not already collaborating with a disputant. Also you aren't professing to be objective, but only to be not very involved in the article, so I'd concede that. If you'd like me to elaborate the remark ("disingenuous") with the clarification that you do not purport to be objective (which others besides myself may have taken to be the connotation), then feel free to ammend yourself (though I don't think that's exactly what you have in mind). And yes indeed, it's a bizarre editting atmosphere, I'm surely run ragged by it, but IMO "disingenuous" is neither so inflammatory, nor so indefensible, to retract flatly. Pete St.John (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Avb 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]