MaxPont

My notepad on: User:MaxPont/Sandbox

This small area on top is for my scribbles and temporary links:

WP:NOTPUNISHMENT

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_cite_essays_or_proposals_as_if_they_were_policy

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Rejected

Fluoride: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2009/06/15/finally_us_epa_europe_recognize_toxicity_of_fluoride.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/dec/15/foodanddrink.immigrationpolicy

Merck phoney jnl: http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_standards

SA 3 month ban http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=276721308

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sheeple

|

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:ScienceApologist

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3&oldid=216944290

WP:BAIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/dec/15/wikipedia.web20

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=255287801#ScienceApologist_reported_by_Jim_Butler_.28Result:_.29

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive86#ScienceApologist_reported_by_Jim_Butler_.28Result:_Stale.2FMoot.29

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_style_guidelines http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:AN/I

A request

Please consider removing your accusations of "Ronz (and some others) has a tendency..." [1] per WP:CIVIL. If you would like me to explain myself in more detail, please do so in a civil manner. --Ronz 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored it [2]. I'd still like to discuss the matter with you. --Ronz 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My posting was in no way incivil. What could be said about deleting other editors postings? MaxPont 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we take this to moderation? --Ronz 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're interested in escalating the stituation instead? [3]. Again, please consider removing personal accusations against me from an article's talk page. --Ronz 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am not interested in escalating. In my mind, my remarks were not personal attacks but an urge to elaborate better when refering to various Wiki-policies. MaxPont 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm asking you to be civil when I refactor your statements. Thanks. --Ronz 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Quackwatch. Thank you. [4], [5], [6], [7]--Ronz 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been active on Wikipedia since August last year. Concerning NPOV, its not that easy. On controversial topics different authors have different opinions about what constitute NPOV. The edits you refer to have all been my attempts to move the text closer to what I think is a NPOV for the full article. MaxPont 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind then if I point out a few things you might find useful:

• How do I create a user subpage? - probably useful for the links above.
• Notability - describes how "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability."
• WP:SOURCE - describes how to properly source content, and what content is allowed.

--Ronz 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Health freedom movement

Introducing numerous external links is in violation of WP:NOT#LINK, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. Sorry if you see it otherwise. --Ronz 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree and will respond on the Ronz Talk page. MaxPont 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the spam warning is necessary given that I think we can settle this quickly and easily. I'm asking for assistance in how to best handle the links. --Ronz 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrett Mediation

Your comments should probably be moved to directly under the one you're responding to. --Ronz 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind if I move it to the correct section? --Ronz 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did it myself (and prefer to do it myself as long as I am active). MaxPont 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to or vice versa. I'll move it. --Ronz 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary & BLP concerns

Max, please be more careful with your edit summaries. Unlike BLP violations in articles and talk pages, they cannot be deleted. Your edit summary:

• (Restore: remove unsourced claim, presumably false (see: Talk))

is very close to libelous, and you have no legitimate reason to presume that the statement is false. We have deliberately limited how many awards and other notable things we care to document about him. Many more could be added and documented, but we stopped with a few. As it stands the statement is NPOV since it clearly identifies it as his claim on his website, which is allowed to be used in an article about himself. We don't take any position on the truth or falsity of the statement. We just quote the website. No one has seriously been able to show any falsity to such statements, so you need to be very careful. BLP applies to articles, talk pages, edit summaries, other editors (Barrett is an editor here), and actually anyone, even outside of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be NPOV, but it is also factually incorrect. Or would you claim that Barrett has written 50 books (which is the natural implication of the statement "His 50 books" on his bio page)? By the way, who are "we"? MaxPont 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith

So you're accusing me of making edits in bad faith now? [8]--Ronz 15:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like an apology, or a very detailed explanation of what you are claiming I did in bad faith at least. --Ronz 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand how you make that URL into me accusing you of bad faith edits. Please give a detailed explanation. MaxPont 10:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Intro/ restore, good faith further edits are welcome"" --Ronz 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No response? --Ronz 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't take responsibility for how other editors interpret my edits. Ever heard about the word touchy? MaxPont 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can explain yourself though. --Ronz 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quackwatch. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are highly involved in this controversy yourself. An edit war warning message is only OK if it is justified and a neutral party posts it. You are not in the position to patronize me. MaxPont 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that adding warnings to others talk pages in error is considered vandalism. I've been following WP:DR and WP:CON trying to get you to do the same.

I'll give anyone a 3rr warning when I think it fits. If you don't like that, take whatever action you see fit. If you choose action that's disruptive or worse, I will let you know yet again.

I'm not patronizing you. Please AGF. I've tried to settle these disputes and you've been uncooperative. I'm not the one here reverting your edits with the comment, "good faith further edits are welcome" --Ronz 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [9] [10] --Ronz 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am relly sorry and would like to apologize. My post was not intended as a personal attack. I tried to be funny but it obviously backfired. MaxPont 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Public figure

Very good point. [11] I agree. --Ronz 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting to Health freedom movement

What's your rationale to redirecting all those sites? You're going against consensus without discussion as far as I can tell. -- Ronz  15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All references to QPW were removed from the Quackwatch article. A redirect to QW is therefore pointless. The closest article seemed to be the HFM article. The alternative is to delete the Redirect pages. MaxPont 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The "alternative" is to keep those consensus redirects in place. The purpose (even indicated by the title!) of QPW is to smear Quackwatch, but since it fails all inclusion criteria here so miserably as to be banned as a source or reference for any purpose, the solution was to leave redirects there, in lieu of an actual link to the site, since doing that would violate multiple policies. Please respect consensus and restore them. Rather than redirects to QW being "pointless", that is actually "the whole point." Only those who participated in the long and arduous struggles about that subject can be expected to fully understand, so please respect their decision. -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What long worked out consensus? Show it to me. If I understand it right there was a proposal to merge the Quackwatch and Quackpotwatch articles that was rejected. Later the Tim Bolen and Quackpotwatch articles were deleted but QPW was still mentioned in the QW article. Finally all references to QPW were removed. A user searching for “Tim Bolen” will be redirected to an article on a different subject and there is nothing in that article to explain why the redirect was made. Totally confusing. The redirects to the HFM article was in my opinion the closest match I could think of. However, a delete of these redirects would be fine with me, though I don’t know how it is done (request for speedy delete?). MaxPont 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily, redirects to deleted pages can be speedy-deleted (see WP:CSD, R1). I'd be happy to do so, but given that there's some controversy about QPW, perhaps listing them at redirects for discussion would be more appropriate? I don't want to act unilaterally here, so I won't delete them unless everyone is OK with their speedy deletion. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Either deletion or discussion is fine with me, though I'd rather the discussion given what's already been said here. -- Ronz  23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, a speedy delete is fine with me. I think it is a clear case: (all references to QPW removed all over WP, etc.) MaxPont 07:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can list them here for me, I'll take a look at them with an eye toward deleting those that are clear redirects to QPW (e.g. Tim Bolen). MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the redirect pages that ought to be deleted:

Quackpotwatch

Tim Bolen

Quackpotwatch.org

Quackpot Watch

Quackpot watch

MaxPont 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted them, and I'll leave a note at Talk:Quackwatch to this effect. Since they were initially redirects to Quackpotwatch, a now-deleted article, and the Quackwatch article contains no mention of QPW, I think the deletion is appropriate. If anyone has a problem with it, let me know and I'm happy to undelete the redirects and send it to WP:RfD instead. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point re: Talk:Stephen Barrett

You have a good point. In the future, I'll just make it clear that I'm not changing my opinion from that expressed in my previous comments, or that the issues have already been addressed in past discussions. -- Ronz  19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re: QuackGuru on Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think you should take another look at your recent comment [12]:

• "In spite of the incivility by Mr Guru, I will comment on the posting."

-- Ronz  23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Coral calcium

As you are probably aware, there has been edit-warring concerning the very edit you made to Coral calcium. Please contribute to the talk page and work toward consensus rather than participating in an edit war. Thanks. -- Ronz  02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RfM Stephen Barrett

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/Stephen Barrett, 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Mediation was declined

Your request for others to "Please explain your grounds for not accepting the DR mechanism" borders on harassment. The dispute should be long over. Your saying, "The result of your refusal to accept mediation is that the dispute will continue" almost comes across as a threat. There's certainly no reason why the dispute should continue. Please carefully consider WP:DR WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DE before pushing this issue any further. Thanks. --Ronz 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your continued focus on individuals and the decisions they've made that you personally don't like is becoming a serious problem. Please stop. --Ronz 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop bullying me. MaxPont 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel like expressing that. You have the issue reversed. I'm taking it to a third party. --Ronz 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to document the following: Ronz archived the talk page section.(diff) (diff) After you had reverted both edits, I removed the section once again from the Barrett talk page (no consensus required to remove stuff like this. how does violating WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS help build an encyclopedia?). You are invited to make your points without (restoring) policy violations that poison the atmosphere. Avb ÷ talk 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Health freedom artists

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Health freedom artists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Are you a sockpuppet of User:TheDoctorIsIn? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Chill out and stop harassing me. MaxPont (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Note that harassment (as you put it in your edit summary) is defined explicitly in Wikipedia guidelines. If you believe my warning was harassment, perhaps you can outline exactly why. I would hope that you would assume good faith that my warning to you was meant to make sure you understood the implications of your actions. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit

The first sentence has a link to the main article: Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of scientific research. The main pointer seems a bit unecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-articles should have a pointer to the main article on that form, and vice versa. MaxPont (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the word chiropractic in bold. I think this resolves the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your removal of the Twinkle access for Levine2112

I'm sure you've messed up your readings of the logs somewhere along the line. I didn't block either QG or Levine, but came across both their unblock requests because of a bot that spams the admins' IRC channel and declined them both. Regarding Levine, he's only made six or seven vandalism reverts in the past month, and they're not even that good. [13] I'll keep an eye on his editing though, and will either give it back to him myself or at any other admin's discretion. east.718 at 20:30, March 6, 2008

Effective communication

I understand, and share, your concerns about the title of Prevalence and legality of homeopathy. Personally I find it very useful in online communication (especially in a charged context) to understand the principle of cognitive bias. It explains how conflicts can arise between good-faith editors. Cognitive biases can be (ab)used to steer a discussion in an intended direction, but more often we steer discussions in an unwanted direction involuntarily, by not accounting for the other participants' cognitive biases. I guess you will find this comment very cryptic. I hope that after reading about the reactance bias you will understand what I mean, and what I am trying to achieve with my response to you on the article's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS: This message is perhaps not an example of effective communication, but so what. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments I have not left wiki, just left a load of screaming over-opinionated and under-informed pushy morons behind and that I'm afraid is permanent. Enough is enough; they can do what they like to that article and all others connected to it. I don't care how degraded it/they get cuz I am no longer part of that. There is no question of reconsidering. cheers Peter morrell 09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Studies

Dear Max, If you really want to help the pro-science Lobby on the article on Homeopathy, please mention the word studies in a positive way in Para 2 of the Lead and tag the references I'm providing:- e.g.studies

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selection (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 May 2008

Please notice that User:Selection is a most probably a sockpuppet of User:Dr.Jhingaadey and that any cooperation with him would make you act as a meatpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Outing"

Hi. With regards to a recent edit of yours, I just wanted to remind you that placing a link on Wikipedia to an external site which purports to identify the private identity of another editor can be problematic unless that editor has him or herself disclosed personal information. If you want to talk to another editor about such matters, it is probably best to do so via e-mail. This will help to avoid any misinterpretation that you are yourself attempting to "out" the editor. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know that. MaxPont (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Please refrain from continually haunting ScienceApologist's editing areas and contributions: your recent edits clearly show that you are following S.A. around. Such behaviour is disruptive, and I respectfully request that you immediately refrain from engaging in it.

Wikistalking is not healthy for the general editing environment, and I am willing to block you should it persist. Additionally, I invite you to branch out your contributions to other areas of interest at which S.A. is not involved: that's the best way to let things settle down.

Regards, Anthøny 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I don't see the basis to this allegation, the editor seems within his normal edit range. It looks to me like AGK trying to hammer MaxPont, a mildly involved editor, for participating in an article, where SA is famous for his uncivil discussion, where MaxPont then commented atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement on SA's behavior. Also SA previously has made patently false allegations in Dec 2007 against MaxPont that seemed to me to be harrassing MaxPont over content, trying to bring admins, JoshusaZ and maybe JzG to bear with a serious false allegation (dropped on compelling discussion of evidence). I agree with II's analysis.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Anthony. I will stay away from SA. However I have edited the water fluoridation article long before the dispute with SA and I might contribute to that article again in the future. I also hope that you view your role as a mentor to curb and reprimand your "client" when appropriate. The goal of mentorship is to teach editors to follow WP rules and work in a positive and collaborative way. MaxPont (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy

Your edit made a false claim.[14] It is relevant that vaccination is cost-effective because chiropractors claim vaccination is ineffective. QuackGuru 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your input

Your inpur at the RfC at Talk:Chiropractic is being dismissed here as it does not mention OR/SYN, which was the topic of the RfC. There was also a previous comment that had wished for more input from you, but I don't know that it was presented to you here. Regards, DigitalC (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin J. Walker in Deletionpedia

Hi You asked on if the deleted Walker article was available anywhere. It's in the DP database, but not yet uploaded: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/Martin_J._Walker.txt Do you think a 'persona non grata' deletion category would be preferable to making out BLPs are 'not notable' when they are? ;-) Sam Weller (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.MaxPont (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

your ArbCom evidence statement

In the last sentence of the second paragraph of your statement you probably want to add the word "not". --Hans Adler (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MaxPont (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion case

I have a couple concerns about the evidence you've posted originally not by you. The version you have posted is essentially the same, and suffers the same problems as the previous one, most significantly its length and wide ranging scope. In addition, you have not shown yourself to have fundamentally digested and interpreted the evidence yourself - but instead copied and pasted the evidence whole sale.

When you attach your name to something, you are doing more than taking responsibility for it - you are vouching that it is your contribution. If you believe that this evidence is pertinent and accurate, I suggest going through it and compressing it down to 1000 words or so, but have them be your own words.--Tznkai (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. Considering that the evidence already had been emailed[15] to the ArbCom members I believe it is important to keep them public. Trials based on secret or hidden evidence is hopefully not the way to go for Wikipedia. The ArbCom instructions[16] allows for longer evidence if they “exceptionally easy to understand (like tables)”. This case is exceptional, with an extremely active editor with activities spanning over years. I think it is important for the ArbCom members to see all the evidence for their decision. I assume that the limits are introduced to alleviate the workload for ArbCom members. Hopefully, the layout will make it easier for them to get an overview of the evidence without chocking them. However, I will prune and shorten the section within the next few days. The diff count is already almost within range.

I also looked in WP:BAN. According to[17] you are EVEN allowed to post material from a banned user if you can “confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them”. The user Durga's Trident is not banned (the more severe sanction) but only blocked. As I said earlier, I take full responsibility for my own posting and I have verified the diffs.MaxPont (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For some very boring bureaucratic reasons, the original posting was in fact a serious violation of policy - part of the problem in using sock puppets. This is an arbitration case, the arbiters must have the very best information available. In addition, evidence pages are used in part to create multiple points of view on a single conflict: simply parroting the evidence of another doesn't help that at all. My suggestion, in the strongest possible terms, is that you remove the evidence for now, but use the diffs to construct your own evidence, in your own words. This will neatly solve many of the problems - but not the one of scope. --Tznkai (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting list

That's quite the list of articles! Any particular reason for choosing them? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not any longer. The list has been around since 2007.MaxPont (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the date for its addition. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic talk page

This edit reinstalled some text with the comment "Undid, these are actullay fairly uncontroversial, per previous Talk discussion". But if you look at the actual talk discussion, we have 3 editors (BRangifer, QuackGuru, and myself) who think that the text should go, and one editor (Levine2112) that it should stay, which means that, if anything, it's fairly uncontroversial that the text should be removed. Are you sure that you read the talk page correctly? If so, could you please comment on the talk page? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about 2007 Mediation Cabal

MaxPont, I am a new editor on the Stephen Barrett article discussing an old issue - whether Barrett's Board Certification status should be included.1 2 I see that Quackguru has closed my last comment.. again without my consent. So, in order to see them, you will have to click on SHOW.
To continue, I was researching what has been said about this in the past, and what actions have been taken to resolve the issue, and I came across your statements on the Mediation Cabal. I also saw your comments here.
What I would like to ask you is why you did not state your position, "agree" or "disagree" on the official final mediation page, here? I realize this is old, but I am trying to understand the history of this dispute.
Thank you for any information you can give me on this matter.
--stmrlbs|talk 07:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly but I believe I was too late and it had already been rejected. MaxPont (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I kind of wondered, because I thought it was pretty clear from what you had written previously that you would have agreed to Mediation. That's why I asked.

--stmrlbs|talk 06:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

aspartame controversy

Maxpont, you might be interested in this conversation since it refers in part to some of your edits: User_talk:Stmrlbs#May_2009 --stmrlbs|talk 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MaxPont. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)