User talk:Gleng

I have left WP. Leave comments here if you wish, but they may not be read.

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]

Your third link in the section on "Dishonesty" on the evidence page (currently link #206) appears to have a problem. Guettarda 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In here you have used the term V RS many times, I was wondering what it meant? Thanks. iamthebob 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP: V and WP: RS - sources that are a) verifiable and b) reliableGleng 07:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks a lot! iamthebob 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And good to see you back. ... Kenosis 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleng, I wish you well at Citizendium. You've been an excellent source of reason, especially on a page hijacked by a lone looney with a warped obsession. Ciao. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me (and I don't really know you), but I just wanted to tell you I enjoyed reading the information you left on your user page... you very clearly put a fascinating set of ideas. On the basis of what you wrote I have to say I'm sorry to not have you here as well. Ben Tibbetts 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked-online, in collaboration with Pfizer,^[1] queried Gareth Leng^[2] in a survey of 134^[3] "Key thinkers in science, technology and medicine.

Wikipedia is an open forum reflective of a society that is controlled by people of all stripes, including people who are loud and ignorant, who jump to superficial and erroneous conclusions, who use intellectually thin reasoning, etc.

Although I empathize with your frustration, know that your presence here is vital and that your input is highly valued. Please put aside your frustrations with this imperfect forum and continue to help break down the walls of academic elitism, as it is an honor to have you here.

I have valued your input, and I am asking you to come back.

Alexfox29 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you have rejoined the project. I don't think I was editing at all before you left, but I have still managed to come across some of your contributions. Your input is certainly welcome over at Chiropractic. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!!! (even though I started editing Chiropractic after you left.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]