User talk:SamuelTheGhost: Difference between revisions

It is reliably reported that John the Baptist was a hamster. Really.

Preached in the wilderness Matthew 3:1

John the Baptist had the same tailor as Elijah. (Compare Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6 with NIV:2 Kings 1:8, HE:2 Kings 1:8, KJV:2 Kings 1:8)

Preached repentance to avoid the day of judgement Mark 1:4 "kingdom of heaven" Matthew 3:2 and punishment of the wicked Matthew 3:10 Luke 3:7–9

Positive ethical guidance Luke 3:10–14

It was claimed he fulfilled prophecy of Isaiah Matthew 3:3 Luke 3:4 John 1:23

Faint praise for Moses and Law John 1:17

Dismissive of all pride in race or ancestry Matthew 3:9 Luke 3:8

nb(HE): 1:1–6 nolang: Genesis 1:1–6 nolang: Mark 1:1–6 nolang: Tobit 1:1–6 BB(polyglot - can get SEP): Genesis 1:1–6 HE: Genesis 1:1–6 vulgate: Genesis 1:1–6 Douay-Rheims: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT(1550): Mark 1:1–6 GreekNT: Mark 1:1–6 NAB: Tobit 1:1–6

Wikimedia statistics

On Ten Commandments you have been making edits to the effect that Sinai and Horeb are different mountains. This is in complete contrast with generally accepted interpretations, according to which these are two names for the same mountain. I think it would be better if you'd discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments first. There may be a problem with emphasis that we need to address. For one thing: which sources can you provide that Horeb and Sinai are different mountains? JFW | T@lk 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I did not revert your links, in the first place, but you ask which policy controls links? It took me a long time to find this out when I needed to know.

To lift from "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)"

"Do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"

"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article... ... Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

"However, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate ... ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection."

The link is, and should be, in the introductory para, and when the main text gets round to it in line 65 - the others are optional. I note you have reinstated 3 links, all at least 10 lines apart, whereas you originally added 6 - IMHO the balance is now about right

Arjayay (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very useful. Let's just hope that Van helsing agrees with you.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot 12:41, 17 May 2008 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (3,819 bytes) (sp: mens→men's) (undo) changed "mens divinor" in the Alexander Anderson (poet) article to "men's divinor". But the original was correct. It's Latin. I think it means "a mind more divine", or something like that, although the phrase doesn't appear to be in common use now. Perhaps it should have been italicised. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for that. I try to watch out for Latin phrases like that (most recently I saw one in Catullus 68 for example), but I guess sometimes one must slip through the net. I've now added the Anderson one to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite, it needed it badly. --Karuna8 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be established in the introduction which god the article is talking about, without having to click on wikilinks. Ben (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk page SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [1].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [2].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know having seen you moved Tomkins to Tompkins Plc, this is against Wiki naming policy [[3]], edit history for article shows it was moved from Tompkins plc to Tompkins previously, and FTSE 250 Index list also every other firm has no plc in title. So Ive reverted it ( I had thought that companies would be designated by Plc , Ltd etc till I found otherwise looking at edit histories / discussions) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after editing it and leaving message for you, I realised its not as simple, as you say could get a tangle (solved one and then get 2 problems) [[Tompkins plc|Tompkins would fix the list but not the article, so apologies for barging in, I'll let you resolve it then as Wikiepedia has this great habit of dragging you off at a tangent when you see something and try to fix it quickly. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will find such situations less surprising in the future. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, I've seen sources for both Lisa's and Jerry's passages. Can't we just tag everything so we can fix the page? This tit for tat isn't going to work very well. Because, it's hard to cite something that's invisible.

Also, should we put this into a NPOV category?Tim (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mishpatim, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Meldshal42? 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I was just notifying you. I didn't write the message, it is written in {{uw-vandalism1}}. Cheers, --Meldshal42? 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the edit was vandalism, I said it was unconstructive. Please calm down. I apologize for making a rude comment. But what was the intention of the edit? --Meldshal42? 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry! i had a bug with my computer that messed this up. i apologize, and thanks for my tolerating that. Man, that was a huge mistake! Thanks, --Meldshal42? 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing essentials to move out of "stub" category are:

• infobox
• picture/cover (original or 1st edition is preferable) for either or both versions presented
• external sources or references to the book
• lists of contributors might not be helpful, unless they're wikilinked, but it's still ok to put them in.

Just a few thoughts...SkierRMH (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. SmackBot just added a reference section and reflist to Bianco (surname). It's harmless, but in this case also pointless. Is there a reason? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inofbox was broken Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 30 August 2008 (GMT).

It wasn't I who introduced that sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"mainstream" is a word to avoid because it indicates that the Bates method might somehow be scientific, which all but the most tried-and-true believers acknowledge it is not. The scientific evidence comes from various Opthamology Texts. For example. "Scientific evidence" is a catch-all term for the facts elucidated by a huge discipline. It's not simply a viewpoint that this is what causes vision loss: evidence-based medicine requires a connection to data and scientific evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The evidence is reported in standard opthamology texts. The persistence of the various forms of ametropia is attributed in all the texts referenced to anatomical, not physiological, conditions. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand what evidence means perfectly well. As far as Wikipedia goes, we need reliable, verifiable sources that are not unduly synthesized by fringe proponents with obvious agendas. Unfortunately, this is not yet to be had at this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry I was tired and distracted by non-Wikipedia things so I got confused about the edit history. I still don't understand why maize has been unilaterally declared to be the primary meaning of corn. It depends entirely on who you are, where you are and what you are hearing or reading. As someone pointed out, a lot of people in this world read the bible, for example, and none of the many occurrences of the word corn in the bible refer to maize. Anyway, I give up. Wikipedia is clearly going to be a US-centric encyclopaedia. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't last long, did it? I suppose I'm addicted. At least to trivial copy editing. I have never been good at adding content anyway, so maybe I should just stay away from that. Thanks for the encouragement anyway! Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I suggest you read the past discussions on these problems, and make sure you understand WP:V and WP:NOT. We're writing an encyclopedia article here. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, Ronz, I quite understand. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I'm glad to see you contributing regularly at Bates method. I placed a tag on the "Ophthalmological Research" section as a way of effectively stating what you attempted to point out here. At this point I don't really think this is worth taking up further but at least the reader will be cautioned. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. I have copied most of Margaret Darst Corbett, the current version of which you created entirely, into the "After Bates" section of Bates method. You could be a big help with that section as you seem to have Pollack's book. I am hoping that more of its text will turn up online somewhere. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with the merge if it stays like that. Yes, I have Pollack's book. I've carried out some test searches of its text in google and they deliver results for chapter 3 only, so I'm fairly sure there's no more of it on the net. If you ask me direct questions about its content, I'll answer them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually e-mailed Quackwatch to suggest putting more chapters up, but Stephen Barrett responded that he doesn't have the book. Google books has a searchable "snippet view" version, and I linked to that for the references to Corbett. I think Pollack will be a major source for the expansion of the "After Bates" section, so your help will be appreciated. We will probably need a different citation for each reference due to the limitations of the Google Books version (since the book is rare, it seems only fair to confirm things for the reader when we can.) Perhaps we could add a subsection about Harold Peppard? Also, the lead of that section needs to be improved. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused by your reference to Pollack as "rare". I bought my copy on abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com/ or http://www.abebooks.co.uk/) in May this year for ten dollars; I observe that there are now just two copies there for sale, both at $100 or more, so I had a bargain. As for the article, I'm getting a little worried about the pruning of the Corbett section. In particular, the source for her own opinion should be directly one of her own three books. Have you got any of them? If not, I've got two of them, and could sort out some pithy phrase to use. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately I don't have any of Corbett's books. Experience leads me to believe that a quote as long as the one that was there will be frowned upon, especially if there's no secondary source for it. Of course we can reference Corbett's books, but we should also use as many "independent" sources as we can. Elwin Marg actually quotes her at some length, so that may help. And somewhere there must be news articles about the case. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing for the Corbett section still seems a bit unclear. For example, is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? I'm thinking about nominating Bates method for a Good article in the near future, but the "After Bates" section still needs some work. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• is Pollack the source for the entire discussion of the legal case? - unfortunately, yes.
• And what is the source for Corbett consulting Bates about her husband's eyesight? - Pollack again, I'm afraid. He gives it as something she said in court during the trial.

Corbett avoids saying anything about her own history in her books, and the publisher's blurb only tells us that she was a pupil of Bates, ran her "School of Eye Education", and that her students included "Aldous Huxley, John Dos Passos and Harold Heffernan". There may be some better source for her, but I haven't found it. Of course a search of the press around the time of the trial would certainly yield stuff, but I guess it would be hard work finding it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the Google news archives doesn't seem to yield anything about the case, though there are a few mentions of Corbett. I really wish more of Pollack's book would show up online somewhere! For now, perhaps you could make the referencing more clear in the section? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an RfC regarding the use of the word "fair" in NPOV which I thought you might be interested in, in light of past discussions. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I need to ponder the question for a little time before deciding whether and how to comment. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelTheGhost, I understand that things are heated at this guideline and the related noticeboard. I am asking all editors to do what they can to de-escalate the dispute at this point. In your own case, I would ask that (1) you avoid using emotionally-charged language such as "ignorant"; (2) that you avoid edit-warring; and (3) that you ensure that you are engaging at talkpages. And as an extra credit #4, it would be nice if you created a userpage.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're watching this page, so I'll reply here.

1. In general, I agree that words like "ignorant" are to be avoided. In this context, however, I was referring to his implicit characterization of me personally. He knows nothing about me, so "ignorant" is precisely the right word.
2. Indeed. I don't think I have in this case, and I don't intend to.
3. I have already made some remarks in the relevant talkpages. If I make any further contribution on this topic, it will be there.
4. I'll create a userpage if and when I find the need. That time has not yet come.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see him specifically referring to you. Is there some other interchange of which I am unaware? --Elonka 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has been no other interchange. At the time I wrote that message, his words were "The ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects" [5] which clearly includes me. I note that he has refactored at your behest, and thank you for that. I don't think I have acted wrongly, but I'm very willing to let the matter drop and move on. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was easy to be civil when calling a spade a spade. I think he did a fairly good job when he changed his comments though.

The problem with even attempting it in edit summaries is that you can't change them later. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not to gossip about other editors. If you are concerned with allegations of conflicts of interest, please do so in a proper forum. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL again! This is making my day! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can learn to follow Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said that you are intrigued by my username, I'll explain it. My selection of a username which refers to Bates' book was partly tongue-in-cheek, since I have seen "Bates cultists" derided by skeptics, mainly on sci.med.vision. But around the time I signed up here, I had also been influenced by some individuals in online communities who could perhaps aptly be termed "Bates cultists", though I'm not convinced that they're wrong. These people believe that Bates' unaltered writings remain the best source of information about vision improvement, and that he did not exaggerate his success in the clinic, but that subsequent Bates teachers failed to get his caliber of results because they diluted the method. Someone characterized the 1943 revision of the book as being "corrupted". I'm now somewhat less inclined toward this viewpoint than I was when I started editing the article, and really I have become more doubtful about the Bates method in general. I've experienced mild temporary improvements which could be explained as ciliary spasm, and more dramatic temporary improvements which may result from a natural contact lens caused by moisture. Which is why I created the "Claimed success" section. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel, I enjoyed reading your comment on my talk page. I haven't responded because I believe it's DGG's turn. :) I think the issue of elitism, and the related questions and issues of how sources and articles should be evaluated is at the heart of many of the disputes here. There is a divide, as you've recognized, between the academic, scientific, "fringe", and mass audiences. I think it's interesting to see how it plays out on Wikipedia, and the discussion was my effort to dialog with someone who seems to use an ends justify the means approach to advance the scientific academic sphere without recognizing the contributions and value of other spheres of knowledge. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving, even if you're not one of us American turkeys. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best that your remove or heavily refactor your accusations against unnamed editors here: [6]. Again, article talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article, not to attack or harass other editors. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz, nice to hear from you. I'm afraid I see no reason to remove what I said. As for "heavily refactoring", that would merely be to describe a spade as a horticultural implement, so I don't see the point.

If you feel you have been harassed, I apologise. That was not my intention. However, given the long history of discussions on this topic, and my desire (which I presume you share) to bring ZapperNapper up to speed on it all, it seems legitimate to summarise some of the previous discussion on particular issues.

I take it that "wikilawyering driven by anti-Bates POV pushing" is the phrase you don't like. I have to say that I see "I think it would be best to use the sources we have to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is" as an explicit desire to push an anti-Bates POV. As for wikilawyering, I think that fundamental policies (NPOV, RS, V) both allow and require, in this case, the use of modern pro-Bates source, properly contextualised, as evidence of what the Bates method now means. Thus it is fair to characterise the many references which have been made to other, less fundamental, policies in order to prevent that use as "wikilawyering". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unable to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, then you might just want to stop editing Wikipedia altogether. Otherwise, you'll likely find yourself extremely frustrated with the problems that you cause and the actions taken by others to resolve them. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you presented a strong case for making corn into an article and separating out corn (disambiguation), could you perhaps weigh in on the talk page. It's not a huge issue, but an editor wants to reframe the language to emphasize the primacy of the maize meaning. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it was the sobering effect of being blocked or the numbing effect of my verbiage, but things seem to have calmed down. Let's hope it lasts. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that these were Huxley's own words affirms my beleif it's better to be more general - it likely was punctate keratitis, but b/c it's not like we can just go get his medical records, keratitis can suffuce - besides that level of specifity is kind of unneeded. BTW, cute Robo hamster. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bearer of bad news come to let us know we've been forsaken? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing a history merge to fix a very old cut and paste move from corn to maize. The first few revisions of corn (disambiguation) (originally at the title corn) were moved by cut and paste to maize back in June 2002. Graham87 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment at User:Citation bot/bugs, the place to discuss the issue is Template talk:Cite book. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelTheGhost. Thank you very much for posting the information about the Woods report in Behavioral optometry and on the Bates method talk page. I am increasingly thinking that the "Ophthalmological Research" section as it is should be deleted from the Bates method article, for reasons which you have raised before. I've thought for a while that the section was misleading and a distraction, but only recently have I sorted out exactly what the problem is. There's no indication from the AAO report (which the section is mainly a summary of) that any of the reviewed studies tested any method which has actually been claimed to improve eyesight. Now if we could find records of a formal controlled study in which a Bates teacher participated, working with subjects while a third-party measured results, that would merit a lot of space in the article. But I'm not sure that has ever happened. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. If I discover such a study, I will certainly let you and Wikipedia know. But I suspect that there isn't one. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you then support deleting the Ophthalmological Research section from the article? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that it's already gone. On balance, I think that that's an improvement. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I merged and condensed it into "Modern Variants". I don't know if that will stick, though. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSWG1920 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the support regarding the Bates method template, and for your contributions to the article in the past year. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]