User talk:Belbo Casaubon

John Edward

Original message: User talk:Elembis#John Edward

I think the relevant guide is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, which says negative information in a biography of a living person must have reliable citations. That means we can only say Edward's claims "have been met with derision by many" if we can find reliable sources for such a statement. Of course, criticism from professional magicians, film editors, psychologists, grief counselors, etc., would (in my opinion) be more relevant and important than criticism from people in general.

I hope that makes sense. Don't hesitate to ask followup questions. — Elembis 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rational Skepticism

Hi Belbo. Lest you find yourself frustrated in what is happening with your edits at John Edward, you might like to check in with these people: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Regards — BillC^talk 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you review the policy on resolving disputes. And please read Canvassing, which says "Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate. In Wikipedia, canvassing, also known as "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian spamming" or "cross-posting", is the attempt to influence the outcome of debates by soliciting comments from like-minded editors." Dreadlocke ☥ 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this was too cryptic for you, making it sound like an accusation - it certainly wasn't meant to be. It's informational, in order to help you understand certain specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines that seem to apply to your edits as well as suggestions by other editors. You appear to be a new editor, so I was trying to be helpful - please take it in good faith. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you need to reply from here to someone else's talk page, I suggest you copy the source of the post rather than the processed Wiki text. It would result in a more readable post. I fixed it where you replied to the above post for you. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your username...

... I assume you're a reader/fan of Foucault's Pendulum? MastCell 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to comment on that very thing. One of the finest books ever written, in my opinion... Rosenkreuz 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. One of my favourites, too. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting users' barnstars

Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." I'm sure removing someone's barnstar counts, and even if it doesn't it's extremely impolite. Please don't do it again. — Elembis 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward

I've tried (if not very well) to be fair in editing John Edward and discussing the article on its talk page, so I was surprised to see these edits, which I think are uncivil. Meanwhile, I apologize for any impoliteness I've shown (unintentionally, I assure you) and for appearing to not recognize other users' contributions appropriately — I think we're all trying to improve the article, even when we disagree. Maybe a request for comment would help us reach consensus on our current disagreements over Edward's article. What do you think? — Elembis 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgot to sign your post at User talk:Dreadlocke

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Will (Talk - contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and John Edward

I noticed you added Template:POV to the John Edward article. I am quite interested in solving any POV problems the article has, so I invite you to voice your concerns on the talk page, to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why", and to "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article" (see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute). I believe (but may well be wrong) that POV issues discussed in Talk:John Edward#Pro Edward POV have been resolved, and in the absence of a dispute on the talk page, the template may be removed. Thanks! — Elembis 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation for John Edward

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Elembis 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar award

		The Original Barnstar
		This user has used exemplary logic and reason while editing the John Edwards wikipedia article. Wikidudeman 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may add this to your userpage.Wikidudeman 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Irrefutable

I hope you are not Taunting me Belbo Casaubon 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uuh... what did you expect? Your argument is just so incredibly cocky. "please dont accuse me of incivilty because my arguments are irrefutable." – Lantoka (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are taunting me, hoping to piss me off a little?? Belbo Casaubon 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah man, I'm not trying to taunt you. This is posted on my talk page (not the article's talk page or your talk page, for example) and it's pretty innocuous. If you don't want people commenting on your behavior, then you should consider trying harder to get along with others. Accusing other people of calling you incivil because your arguments are "irrefutable" is extremely cocky. – Lantoka (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame we got off to a bad start, I have read some of your edits, and your ideas are very similar to my own, I also like the way you call me man, makes me feel like I should be full of hallucinogenic love drugs. I apologise if I seem somewhat pompous, I merely endeavor to use the English language in the best way possible, I also think if you examine the points made, no one is refuting them....if they can or will, or are able to because they haven't been blocked then I will go outside in the cold scottish night and rub myself down with cow shite. anyway, I like your style you sound like you would be fun IRL. Belbo Casaubon 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted man. And you know, I'm really glad that you were willing to make peace. You seem alright. Just the whole atmosphere of the Talk:John Edward page has been getting more and more noxious of late. I'm especially not too happy about Dreadlocke's 3RR block, but hey, he did violate the rule and the block only was for three hours.

I understand where you're coming from with the whole "there is no consensus thing". Honestly. The problem is that we all had spent a lot of time and effort debating the thing out (in mediation, no less!) and after several days finally reached something looking like a consensus (roughly 4 for, 1 against). And then you and your friend arrived late, which made a mess of the whole thing again (now roughly 4 for, 3 against).

I respect your opinions and stuff man. They're valid. But if your intent is really to improve how you communicate (as stated above), start paying really close attention to how you say stuff and exactly what you argue. You'll find that the more thought you put into stuff, the better your argument will sound. =)

As for the whole Talk:John Edward thing, I'm probably moving toward a break myself. To be honest it's actually generating quite a bit of stress for me. It might be good if all of us let things rest for a day or two and then returned to the article, focused on the intro.

You know, like you said, we really don't disagree a whole lot on the basics. We both want an NPOV lead. We just disagree on which lead is more NPOV, because when we read the lead we get different impressions, because we've had different experiences. When I read that he "performs as a psychic medium", it seems pretty neutral to me because the definition that comes to my mind is the one where he performs for his show. Now, if you're performing on a show, it's totally neutral and completely sidesteps the entire issue of whether or not he has psychic powers. Which is why it works for me.

You and some others, though, see different things when you read that lead. Perhaps the other definition comes to mind, one that accuses him of being a charlatan. The reason I don't have a problem with that is because, well, that one word covers both sides of the debate. Lacking a more neutral wording all-together (and this is a problem because we want the sentence to mention his show, which entails some kind of action verb relating to what he does on the show), I think this is the best wording available, which is why I'm in favor of keeping it this way. And we've been through a whole lot of debate to come to this conclusion.

So yah man, let's try to just keep it cool at the John Edward article. There's no need to start quoting WP:CIVIL and talking about the strength of other people's arguments and all that... There are more diplomatic ways to disagree, that avoid all this drama and tension. Basic respect for all other editors and their opinions really goes a long way toward keeping people calm and rational debators.

Anyway, that's good for now. I've practically written a book. Thanks for the apology. – Lantoka (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

You are free to disagree with the majority. The majority has found a consensus which is different from the views you share. Either you respect them, or you dont. Sorry you werent around during mediation. But Ive considered your arguments and I dont find your arguments compelling enough to override the agreement that we have reached. You rae free to find more allies of course, and when you do so I suggest you first start a new discussion on the talk page, using a method of taking a vote from people. -Ste|vertigo 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. If the decision doesn't still have consensus (note that "majority" isn't appropriate since it's not a vote), the article gets changed (and new discussion is already underway). Not to mention that the mediator's job is to neutrally facilitate discussion, not declare arguments valid or not. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its helpful to be mindful of what other people are saying. Part of "facilitating discussion" means reminding people to first listen before speaking. -Ste|vertigo 01:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can relate

During a masochistic moment, I was reading the Talk:John_Edward page, and saw your comment characterizing a certain edit as: a simulation of neutrality through vagueness and multiple interpretations, but under analysis it breaks down. Odd, but that EXACT same problem keeps cropping up in another article dealing with the paranormal, Electronic_voice _phenomenon. Drop by sometime and see if you agree. --- LuckyLouie 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Wow, thanks a lot man! It means a lot to me. =) – Lantoka (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

You know, despite my initial reservations, I gotta say that you're turning out to be a pretty reasonable editor after all. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

Take a look through your own edits before you start making accusations. [1]. If anyone appears to be a SPA, it's you - what, 95% of your edits are on John Edward? I have over 8,000 edits and most of them are not related to the Edward article at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, I'm not currently waving any rules, and since you've been an active editor under this ID you have basically been an SPA - which you were obviously accusing others of. And if you really look through my edits a majority are not paranormal related. There's over 8,000 of them, have fun! Plus, crowing about another's blocks is totally uncvil. You prompted my observations about SPA with your little rude comment in the edit commentary, so deal with it. I find that you're part of the POV pushing crowd, so there. Keep your "blahs" to yourself. And yeah, I do have the moral high-ground. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 31 hours for this severe personal attack. Please take this time to cool down, and read WP:CIVIL and when you return, refrain from making such comments in the future Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now extended your block to 1 week for continued pesonal attacks, please take my previous advice when you return Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Israel has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ndenison ^talk 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]