User talk:Bodnotbod

Hello, what in God's name could have brought you here? Am I in trouble?

Please leave comments in the right section OR at the bottom of the page.

Archived posts: May 04

In trouble? BIG TIME!

Nah, just kidding. Saw the change you made to Clinical depression, and just want to let you know that the stat comes from the Canadian Mental Health Association, which has far better survey tools for such things than I. You may wish to consider reverting it. Denni 01:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Everyone needs one easy victory a day. I'm not going to push for a revert to your edit, first, because you worded it quite well, and second, because I'm inclined to agree with you. (The stat, BTW, comes from a handbook published by the CMHA). If someone with the real goods comes along, they can revert or modify it. Denni 02:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

using Categories

The short answer to your question on Category talk:Writers by genre is to read

Some hints for doing a complete job:

In addition to the category, include as a pipelink the person's name in Last, First format; i.e., [[Category:Beat writers|Kerouac, Jack]], this way they get alphabetized correctly in the list.
While adding them to one category, read through the article and see what other categories are appropriate. For example, I also added Jack Kerouac to Category:Novelists and Category:American writers. I considered adding him to Category:Poets but couldn't decide. (You can add it if you think it is appropriate.) --ssd 05:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Convention is to add categories (and language links) to the end of the article. Partly, this is to reduce confusion to new writers; also, it makes it easier to space out without leaving a glob of space at the top of the aricle.

Have fun! --ssd 05:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CamBottom

Hi Bodnotbod, I saw your revert on clinical depression. I have conducted a very similar argument with John Gohde on his talk page. I am not very happy with this boxing match. The compromise we reached was to replace {{CamBottom}} with {{CamTiny}}, which is less intrusive but still a far cry from "normal" encyclopedic info on the CAM viewpoint. Any views on the matter? JFW | T@lk 13:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bod. It appears John has started stage III of his CAM project. This is only good news: at least we can hear what he has to say, rather than skirmishes with boxes (even boxes that aren't).

What I do appreciate is his scientific citations! Much of the article material is not referenced to professional literature, which makes it relatively easy to challenge ambiguous statements. Do you know if there are any wik-psychiatrists that might be able to do this?? JFW | T@lk 08:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page message. I have little to add, and quotations of journal articles that are not otherwise mentioned should be removed. But I would recommend keeping articles that appear relevant, and certainly not replace then with links to the BBC! I am too underqualified on psychiatry to give professional feedback on this particular article, but I'll give it a close reading soon... JFW | T@lk 19:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's an arbitration case going on with MNH right now. Comments which might help keep his knowledge but alleviate his personality would be a damn fine thing ... - David Gerard 00:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

~~I can't find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration, where do I go? --bodnotbod 01:02, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)~~ Found it! --bodnotbod 01:07, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Saw your summary of the actions of MrNH. Yeah, it really is bizarre the more one looks at it. I'm starting to believe he may be suffering from a condition best dealt with using medications. Kd4ttc 23:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm lovin' it

Hi. I noticed your recent edits to McDonald's Corporation. You may be interested to learn of the existence of McLibel case. I have created appropriate redirects. I have left your summary intact as I think a short paragraph on the trial is worthwhile in the McD article itself, as well as a more substantial treatment in the other article. The other hospital stuff is probably less important (a flash in the pan that isn't particularly important over the fifty year history of the corporation) but I guess you thought it deserves the prominence? Pcb21| Pete 23:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I feel it's nice to have it there ;o) But, you know, I wouldn't get into an edit war over it. If someone deletes it I'll ask them why, but I'm not gonna take it out myself ;o) --bodnotbod 23:58, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Bodnotbod, I do understand your perspective about allowing the community to offer evidence (this is in reference to a note you left on the evidence page for Irismeister). I think the reason for the restriction is that arbitration cases otherwise tend to attract users who looking for trouble and like to put themselves in it. Careful restrictions on who may post to these pages helps limit the escalation of situations, which often become much more partisan than they should be by different editors showing up to say "I don't really know what happened in this situation, but {Editor 1} is a sensible fellow who does vital work here, while I've never heard of {Editor 2} but a look at his work makes it clear he's a talentless hack." I will say this - if you have evidence to offer concerning an arbitration case, the best way to handle it is to contact one of the involved parties. If you have evidence helping to clear Irismeister or demonstrate a fault of mine that led to Irismeister's comments, you can contact him on his talk page. Likewise, if you have evidence substantiating my assertions about Irismeister's conduct, you could leave a note for me on my talk page. This kind of filtering allows the parties in an arbitration to control, to some extent, the course of arbitration, and set the tone. If evidence is offered to me that I think detracts from the main point, I can choose not to use it, whereas if a random editor was able to show up and offer it, the evidence could make the case seem trivial (if, say, evidence that an editor is gay was introduced by someone who finds that offensive, it could make all parties opposed to that editor appear to be homophobic). If you still disagree with the arbitration policy, well, I think there's plenty of room to discuss it. But I thought I'd give you my impression of why it works the way it does. And as noted above, if you have evidence to offer, I suggest contacting either Irismeister or myself. Jwrosenzweig 16:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a completely different view of this to yourself. It seems to me that trying to present evidence via the two main combatants is precisely the wrong way to go about it. It's like filtering evidence through either an amplifier or dampener. Evidence should stand alone as a flat description of behaviour with a link identifying the user's edit, ie opinion is no replacement for a simple pointer towards the defendant's (if that's the right term) behaviour.

Introducing statements such as "talentless hack" into evidence should result in whoever posted that to be warned for a personal attack.

Your concerns that the case could be diluted are understandable, I guess - but I think you have to put faith in the committee itself to sift through what is valuable and what is not.

FWIW I had intended to examine Irismeister's edits for breaches of policy and report on them using a simple link to each instance, whether that be personal attack, edit wars or any other examples of bad practice. However, if I were to do that and then send it to you that would make me look completely partisan to you - and I had absolutely no interest in what you've done (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I'm sure you are doing interesting work like other good users, I just mean...) since you are not the subject of the arbitration. Irismeister is. --bodnotbod 17:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I completely respect your position, which is why I noted there was plenty of room for discussion on the topic. :-) I'm open to different possibilities -- I just wanted to explain why I think there is a certain logic to the current situation (although I recognize many potential challenges to that logic). I'm sorry that I over-caricaturized how discussions become partisan. Usually blatant phrases like "talentless hack are not used" -- editors are pretty sophisticated at finding ways of elevating one editor and showing disdain for another without getting themselves in trouble. Sad, really. And while I have a lot fo faith in the AC, I also recognize that they have way too little time to devote to way too many cases, which is why it takes 3-5 weeks to resolve disputes. Right now they've taken a week to discuss whether or not to take "emergency action" to ban an editor while the case is decided....so far, they're all agreed, but they can't get a majority to vote. Obviously, in such circumstances, I want to do as much as possible to provide the AC with all the relevant evidence with as little fluff as possible, to make it easier to find resolution more quickly. I do like your approach theoretically, but I believe (and you're free to disagree with me) that practicality demands a filter at this point. I recognize its limitations, however, and wouldn't die on that particular hill. I am glad you wish to avoid seeming partisan, and so I encourage you to leave evidence on the talk page of the evidence page. I expect the AC will read what is there. An unsatisfactory solution, I know. I encourage you to start dialogue about this on the talk page of the arbitration policy document. Finally, one minor correction: I too am subject to this arbitration. Arbitration has to take place between two parties. At issue is Irismeister's treatment of me (that's my complaint), but I feel it is his right to have examined anything I might have said or done to create the situation. Admittedly, at present no evidence has been submitted to challenge my behavior, and I hope and trust that none exists, but I would encourage the bringing to light of anything that shows I contributed somehow to the problem -- if I've misbehaved, I should be chastised, whether by warning, ban, or any other consequence the AC selects. Not that you have to take any special interest in my conduct, of course. But I do want it to be very clear that Irismeister has the right to note any misconduct on my part -- this isn't a prosecution of Irismeister by Wikipedia. It is a dispute between two parties concerning whether or not either of them has violated Wikipedia policy, which the arbitrators will examine for merit. I hope you don't take offense to my comments -- I very much agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I've been impressed by your work here as an editor. But I do want to make my position clear, partially for your sake, and partially because I don't want anyone who stumbles across this conversation to misunderstand my perspective. Sorry for taking up so much space on your talk page. 67.105.195.126 18:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)