User talk:Havermayer

Welcome!

Quackery on Reiki

I noticed that you added Quackery to Reiki and Homeopathy. This is good - we need more rational and scientific editors in the area, but since you seem to be somewhat new and you don't seem to have dealt with articles on pseudoscience and quackery before, I should inform you that your edits will be reverted by supporters, and you will most likely be attacked for making these edits, especially if you are persistant in making them (take a look at my user page, for example). In order to keep changes like this, you need to monitor the articles, and be able to support your changes with policy and the core tenets and spirit of Wikipedia. The latter is important, so that you do not become bogged down in wikilawyering. Supporters of quackery and pseudoscience often have quite a bit of time to think about such things, and often will have more time to edit than others. If you have any questions, or need any help, feel free to ask on the WikiProject Pseudoscience talk page (the notice at the top about PNA isn't actually followed by anyone, as can be seen by reading the rest of the page), which usually covers quackery as well. And have fun watching me get attacked for writing this note. --Philosophus ^T 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First attack then. I removed the category link. You take the view that Reiki is quackery, which is your right. It is certainly not generally accepted though, which is why we can't allow Reiki to be added to the category. Please take care to avoid adding your own point of view to articles. -- Ec5618 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should have also mentioned that adding Quackery as a category probably can't be justified, though it depends on the meaning of the categories, which isn't quite clear. I believe this was discussed in regards to BDORT and Yoshiaki Omura. The consensus was to use See Also instead of categories for such things, rather than more complex resolutions like creating Alleged * categories. More importantly, we need editors to check the actual texts for POV, and make sure that the mainstream scientific view is properly and proportionally represented. Especially useful is the finding of reliable sources that promote the scientific point of view on such subjects explicitly, so that criticism that is added can be justified. Often, some editors will insist on sticking so strictly to NOR that it is difficult to add content saying that the mainstream scientific community considers something to be pseudoscience even if the NSF has published materials calling it pseudoscience. --Philosophus ^T 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical Skepticism

Hi, I noticed you made some changes to the skepticism article recently. Do your changes mean that you don't consider religious skepticism and activist skepticism to be sub-categories of empirical skepticism? The reason I ask is that they were previously listed as types of empirical skepticism, but after your changes they are not. However, the activist skepticism section still says, "Activist skeptics, self-described 'debunkers' are a subset of empirical skeptics." This means that the text of the article is not consistent with your organizational changes. --JHP 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --apers0n 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn and Teller's Bullshit!"

Sorry, Honest mistake.

I thought that it was vandalism insultig Penn and Teller (calling their show BS). I guess that I should have followed the link to see that it was the name of a real program.

I'll edit the text a little to make it clearer for other reader who might also be unfamiliar with the program (Opps again, looks like you've already done that. Cheers).

perfectblue 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNIyer 12

Honestly, I don't know. I know he had an RfC against him about a year ago that went nowhere. I just revert the edits now out of habit. If you find out the next step, I'll join you. Sraan 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics ogre

Hi, I've just started the game using ePSXe and the rom from home of the underdogs. Since I've only just started the plot is not at all clear to me yet. Do you know anywhere where there is a good outline of the plot that I could use to write that section? I'm kind of at a loss at the moment. Cheers, jaco♫plane 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD [1]. -- Fyslee 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Our university research committee approved the project.

Thanks, Corey 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moot, the 4CHAN man

The article Moot is a disambiguation article. Its purpose is to disambiguate between articles that have the same, or nearly the same, subject title. There is no such article as Moot (4Chan), so it can't figure on the Moot disambig page, therefore I've removed it again. If you create such an article, you can add a reference to it on the Moot page. --Concrete Cowboy 13:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

All my photos are in the public domain and you are free to edit them in any way you like. I would appreciate it if you credit me for the original photo, but you don't have to. Rgards. Adam 09:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of Case Closed

Please, please give your rationale of moving Case Closed to Case Closed (manga) without prior discussion. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Novella

Hey there... I see you created Steven Novella as a redirect. I've now created a proper article, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look. Mikker ^(...) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

I have nominated The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Bazamataz

AfD nomination of Skepchick

I have nominated Skepchick, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepchick. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Damiens.rf 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On writing articles on global warming and climate change

Hi. I would like 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 (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey Havermayer. Your user page was just vandalized, so I restored it to the current version. If that is not what you want on your user page, my apologies and please feel free to go revert it from the history and/or change it. WikiTome | Talk 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Metal Gear -> Metal Gear (series) may be against consensus

Hello Havermayer. See Talk:Metal Gear (series)#Requested move 2. This is the last formal move discussion (July 2010), and you've just undone the result of that discussion. Please move it back, and if you still think it is at the wrong title, open a new move discussion. WP:RM gives advice on how to do that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at My Life Me. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bility (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Laws of Noah

Hi, what is your reason for this edit? This would seem completely uncontroversial. What's the objection? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, its no big deal. Knock yourself out. Make your changes.--Havermayer (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks then could you restore the edits please. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trottier

You placed a POV tag on the Justin Trottier article. Can you please explain your reasons on the Discussion page? To date there has been no discussion. Unless one is started the tag will be removed. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Daily

A discussion you previously took part in regarding the Equestria Daily page has been relisted for deletion. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]