User talk:PalMD

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)

Collaboration

Hey, I am not sure what your schedule is like but I want to write some articles but don't have as much time so collaboration would be cool. Would you be at all interested in writing up an article about modern denial of the germ theory of disease? Could cover the followers of Antoine Béchamp, homotoxicology, ect.? tmtoulouse ^irritate 11:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

That sounds really interesting. I'll have to google that stuff. My schedule has taken a turn for the manic as well, so maybe this is a good way to go at it.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 12:15, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Please don't

"Block the socks!" Sam Wellington the fourth 23:48, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

in principle, i approve of socks--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 23:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Protecting?

Pal: how do I 'protect'? - I've tried several times & it just comes up 'unprotected' as you'll see from the history of JB. Susan^{talk to me} 19:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

This is the first time ive ever used the function. Hit the "lock" button. As far as all the checkboxes you'll see, Im not sure...i guessed.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 19:01, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Dr. Joseph Mercola

If you get a chance, you might want to check this guy out. TerryH cites him when it comes to abandoning his belief science and medicine and taking up fundamentalism and literalism instead. You'd be able to look at his stuff with a more informed eye than me, but apparently he's got claims that modern medicine is only good at diagnosis and acute trauma, and that's about it. If that's his actual view, he sounds a bit nutty to me. --Kels 22:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Sounds fun...i'll have to check it out. Been blogging too much lately and running into all sorts of unsavory characters like that. Thanks for the tip.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

OMG I've only been at that site for a second and it's already one of the most vile woo-factories I've ever seen.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

According to WP, he's a serious promoter, critic (valid or no) of the pharmaceutical industry, and has a feud with Quackwatch. --Kels 22:37, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

We all know WP is a hotbed of deceit.!!--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:59, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

relocation

Please leave a link to where the convo went so those of us who are obsessed enough to follow, can? Tankies... human^{be in} 21:29, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Oops. See Talk:Gay Bowel Syndrome

Thanks. Wiki protocol and all... PS, thanks for taking the effort to address this silliness. human^{be in} 21:52, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I guess i was cranky enough to crank it out. Jebus but I can't stand fools sometimes.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 21:56, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Re 'talk' deletion;

Why didn't I think of that? Susan^{talk to me} 12:38, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

OOps, i meant to just kill the user page.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 12:44, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

It's good -- stops that offensive name appearing on Recent Changes. Susan^{talk to me}

"Hate crime name" sounds surprisingly Conservapedia-like in a blocking reason. What are you going to do, report me to the FBI? Or maybe the KGB? Did I mention I had free sppech? 4.152.33.111 13:12, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

The community has yet to decide whether we'd like to protect user's speech at, below, or above the level of federal protection of speech in the US, but express advocacy of unlawful conduct has never been protected. Death threats are periodically unprotected. Compare Schenck v. U.S. with Brandenburg v. Ohio. I think we've chosen not to protect such acts. G'day.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 13:21, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point though, Ames; where are we going to define our legal standards to? If I may add my own two euro-cents, then international human rights law would seem to back up Ames' point -

ICPR 18 (1), (3). 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, [and] conscience ... no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.' 'Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.'

We're not coercing him in a manner that would impair his freedom to adopt a belief, and incitements to kill are a Bad Thing proscribed by other UN law, that impinges upon 'the fundamental rights and freedoms of others'. Still, as a non-governmental group, I'm not even sure if we can abuse human rights.

This is all immaterial, and to be honest, we need no further justification to block Mr Berkeley any more. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Offensive names

If a user creates an account with a name that the community deems offensive enough that it needs removal, how about we just remove the user instead of an infinite block? I don't know where else this conversation is taking place so I am injecting here. tmtoulouse ^irritate 13:40, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Thats a good idea. Better than just having an infinite block hanging around. - Icewedge 13:50, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Isn't there some sort of mad mediawiki power that can do that? Even better, the 'rename' extension is already in place - why not just deploy it now, and rename him to something less offensive? After all, that's what we've done with his content. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I can make him disappear if thats what we decide we want. tmtoulouse ^irritate 15:19, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

We want him to change his name; why don't we do it for him? It allows us to stand closer to our aim of 'we don't censor people'. Also, by the doctrine of 'WWASD', I think we could allow him to continue (even if we revert his every edit), under a non-offensive name. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'm still of the opinion that we should feel no obligation to tolerate obvious hate speech (even if it might be prodst). As an open forum, we shouldn't censor as a rule, but as an open forum if we want to maintain even a shred of our mission, I thing we should dust off the Andy Hammer for cases like this. --PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:26, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Hit them with the hammer of Thor! - Icewedge 15:33, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm with Doc, offensiveness aside, he's an intolerable waste of time. As he well knows offensive names all over the site is not a good impression to portray. If there's any way he can be totally removed (with socks) then I'm all for it. Susan^{talk to me} 15:36, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad it's a topic of discussion. Imagine a similar discussion at CP! LMAO! However, if you take a step back, and, for instance think of a university newspaper. They tend to tolerate lots of different views, and discuss editorial policy ad nauseum, but when it comes down to it, they won't serve as a forum for hate speech.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:42, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

We don't have to have offensive usernames if we edit the username ... -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I could be wrong, but I don't believe we have a community standard on offensive names - so this would seem to be the invocation of an "unwritten rule". And unwritten rules are a bad thing. If we really want to do something like this then we should formalize it. But do we want to do this? We're getting quite close to censorship aren't we? Who decides what names are offensive? What are the standards? And what is offensive? Things that offend "us"? That offend Christians? That offend Buddhists (if that is possible)? Things that offend atheists? This is a though call.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the pr0n standard is not an inappropriate model...also, any posts or names that clearly invoke violence are probably ok to censor...why not? If there is good content, it'll percolate up eventually.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Trolls

Offensive usernames are made by trolls. If one does not feed the troll the troll goes away. I do not feel we need another rule. If it's a case of "what-will-people-say" about RW then I am willingly outta here. CЯacke® 15:58, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a good point, of course, but I don't know...I guess I'm just wondering the point of allowing blatantly horrible stuff to stand. Damn you cracker, for making me keep thinking!--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 16:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

TY. I also think this is a major point: The whole of CP is de(a)dicated to controlling the message and who gets to edit. By making a new rule everytime a "problem" arises one falls into the "rule by fiat" mess that is currently CP. Look around and see what you can do about the "problem" with what is at hand. Keep it simple, silly. What makes for a "nice place" isn't that people we don't want come around but precisely the opposite. We don't know "who we don't like" unless and until we let every troll in the village "in". This sounds radical because it is. Who knows what might happen? CЯacke® 16:17, 6 October 2007 (EDT)