User talk:TechBear

Homiletic & Pastoral Review is one of the most well-respected pastoral magazines in the world. It is not simply a blog. And the reference provided is from an article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review written by a highly informed and respected physician who is an expert in his field.

When ACPeds asked Dr. Collins to identify the specific research that was misleading and incorrect, he failed to identify a single peer-reviewed article.^[1][2]

Sallysue1159 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote and matching reference that I deleted did not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source. I will concede that I may have been in error calling it a blog. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the SAV001 page was spammy but I do think that Wikipedia is a place where potential trial participants get some amount of service. As you say, recruitment should not happen here, but something should I am not sure what. Thanks for your email. I am still thinking about it and talking it over with others. I would like to talk to you soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be aware that not every IP is placing an edit for the first time - just as you should be aware that edits are presumed to be placed with good faith.

I myself have actually been here since even before 9/11, and quite literally have tens of thousands of edits. Around 6 years ago I estimated it was roughly 35,000. I haven't stopped since to work out that number again. Before the rules were changed I created articles and participated at all levels. These days I just cajole others into creating them for me. And I myself even from time to time have cause to remind another editor of the house rules.

I was surprised at first that you took issue with such an innocuous edit, but then I realized that I had used a source that can agitate some who work from, and see in others, an ideological bias. After a quick look at your edit history I saw further indication that this was possible.

As I was a little taken aback by the fact that you chose not to select a more suitable ref as one does who tries to keep with the civil Wikipedia practice of improving citations in preference to reversion - I decided to test my hypothesis.

I added a poorer ref intentionally, but one from an ideologically more acceptable direction for you. Compare the two, here side by side. The Atlantic and The Weekly Standard. Notice that the one you objected to and reverted on sight is a dry and factual reportorial account written by a journalist while the one you found acceptable is a breezy opinionated observation piece by a blogger who also coughs up words for Gawker and the Onion.

The result of the experiment, as you can see, was absolutely as predicted by the hypothesis. 12.144.158.23 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I responded to your edit on the talk page. Please respond there. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, unless you feel like replying, Someone pointed out a ref to Morgellons in the body of the article. Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noted that you reverted my edits while it remains under discussion. Your input is certainly welcome and perhaps much needed. So feel free to review the citations and share your thoughts. I'm curious to hear your perspective. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment on Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#Comic_Con. It is a statement of fact, but it is being used as WP:SYN. The first statement implies causality of the second statement. It is this causality that is at issue, not the fact that he did not attend. The fact that he did not attend has no weight in the article if not for the causality, which is speculation by a single source - inappropriate for a WP:BLP. As for leaving the source, it supports the first statement as well, so there was no sense in removing a valid secondary source. Morphh ^(talk) 14:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TechBear. You have new messages at Lordvolton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please join the discussion on the War on Women article before reverting. Two editors have been working on a compromise for several weeks. You are only making a tense situation worse. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I just noticed your message on the Wikiproject Religion discussion page. Sorry I didn't see it sooner. I just wanted to let you know that I don't plan on making any edits to Ramtha's page myself. I am looking for people to look over what I've written and share with me any suggestions they have, if this is something you'd like to do. Calstarry (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking about page Criticism of Religion, you can check it, the user is probably trying to lower the amount of criticism, although it's highly needed for the page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Bryan Fischer. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, you are the one who is removing properly referenced information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to join in the lengthy discussion on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for explaining the reason for the revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbc32 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have issues with the data interpretation. commons:File talk:Discrimination against atheists by country.svg Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The category page was a mess. It seemed to define the category by where to look for the items to include in it. I've cleaned up the page, including clarifying the inclusion criteria, and I moved the hunting advice to the talk page.

The reason I thought of adding HIV vaccine was because Malaria vaccine is already included in the category.

These two technologies do not exist yet. That is, they are hypothetical as opposed to actual.

Scientists believe so strongly that they could exist that they are working diligently to bring them about. That is, the technologies do not appear to be impossible.

Therefore, they fit this category precisely.

Please reconsider your revert.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You recently removed a source diff from the above article with the edit summary, "Undid revision 602397797 by 128.240.229.66 (talk) I'm assuming good faith, but references behind a paywall cannot be checked." Please see the WP:PAYWALL section of WP:VERIFIABILITY policy which states clearly, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." Just because a source is behind a paywall does not mean it is not verifiable. Other editors may be able to verify the source for you. It is not appropriate to remove a source because you don't choose to pay for access or use the resource available to attempt verification. If you feel the source is not likely to reflect the content it is used to support you use the template verify source. I think the source that was added was a much higher quality source for the content per WP:MEDRS as it is a review and from 2013 as opposed to 2005. The journal Toxicologic Pathology is peer reviewed and the article is indexed in Pub Med. You can read the abstract here. As the abstract indicates the journal article supports the content I have reverted your edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to revert that section blanking at Fred's page but you beat me to it. You might want to review the history log for that page, as it looks like you might have only restored half of the blanking. If that was intentional never mind this message.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks; it's been rolled back properly now. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh give me a fucking break about "Creationism Earth dating being a fringe theory". It has more supported evidence than "the scientific theory", even though both theories are scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.14.43 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 April 2014‎

Re: This edit on Talk:Pacific Northwest tree octopus, please note the reversion by NeilN. I've been archiving pages for nearly nine years per the guidelines at WP:ARCHIVE. Am I missing something like a new procedure? I can't seem to find one. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Valfontis You did a proper archive by moving the content to Talk:Pacific_Northwest_tree_octopus/Archive_1#Non-notable_hoaxes. I know of no policy that says this is wrong, but personally, I do not archive things from the main talk page no matter how old they are unless the main talk page is crowded. You only left one discussion on that talk page, and my preference would be to move the entire archive back to that space because there is hardly any discussion on this topic at all. You must have thought a lot about archiving if you do this a lot, so why do you prefer nearly blank talk pages? Sometimes I get my posts to talk pages answered only after years have passed, especially for low-traffic articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry. I archive on a case-by-case basis. For this page, it was because someone blanked the discussion, and I thought it was likely because it was stale--that is, it discussed a problem with the article that had long since been corrected and was no longer relevant to the current article. (I note that the blanking also included some vandalism, but the result is the same.) I also tend to archive old talk threads that are chat or that are attracting chat. Interested people (i.e. active editors) can easily search the archive (I always add a template), and most old talk page discussions just attract drive-by comments not aimed at improving the article. If I blank things for some reason (rarely--mostly for off topic chat and vandalism), I say that in the edit summary. If I'm archiving something, I say that in the edit summary (as I did in this case) and my contribs always show the next edit is the actual archiving. In a nutshell, talk pages, especially for topics that attract a lot of student vandalism seem to stay better focused if archived. Depending on the page I leave everything up to 1 or 2 years old. I hope that explains. Valfontis (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Valfontis This seems to be a well-considered process and entirely reasonable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am used to archiving being done automatically by a bot, and the article in question had been the target of vandals before. I had not realized that material had been moved, as the edit message was unclear on that point. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Now, as amusing as it is to see my talk page turned into social medium, may I ask you gentlefolk to take your discussion to a more appropriate forum? Thanks. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware that the article for this entry had been speedily deleted on Tuesday. I will be reinserting the entry and restoring a more fully referenced article for Ancient British Church in North America. The article was deleted under WP:A7, which should not have been applied in this case. • Astynax ^talk 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The article cited by the statement in the paragraph says, quote unquote, "Although oral transmission of HIV is far less common than vaginal and rectal transmissions, infections through this route do occur through oral sex..." I fail to under your reason for the reversion, "the paragraph addresses oral sex specifically", as -- once again -- the article cited by the pargraph says, namely, that oral transmission of HIV is less than vaginal AND anal sex. Citing just vaginal sex is 1/2 of what is being said. Using what I think is your reasoning -- which I can't follow at all -- why not just leave out vaginal sex, too? But you can't, as the point is tranmisson of HIV by oral sex is less than that of vagainal AND anal sex. You need something to quantify the oral sex risk. So my edit, adding the second part of the equation, was thruthful. WIthout reference to sex other than oral sex, does the paragraph have clear meaning? Wny not just cut it to, The transmission of HIV by oral sex is minimal. What does that mean?

The CDC web site says, "The risk of HIV transmission through oral sex is much less than that from anal or vaginal sex—but it is not zero." In fact, this paragraph should be rewritten to relfect all of the CDC's information, which is more thorough (it explains oral sex). The paragraph as written is inadequate.... Honestly, I cannot understand why you would take it upon yourself to revert a minimal, and truthful edit.William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't paying close enough attention; thanks for pointing this out. I've reverted my reversion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And that is how it should be according to long and settle "Wikipedia policy". Please see the discussion here: What is his legal name? Is the wrong question. The right question is what do most people call him?--ML (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

TechBear,

Unless you can explain to me how the disambiguation I placed in the lead of Unitarianism was "confusing" Christian Unitarian theology with UU Unitarian theology, I will be wanting to place an Rfc on this question. To me your logic still seems confusing. Granted, UU Unitarian theology is different from Christian Unitarian theology, but I cannot understand why you do not want to describe the stark differences in the article's lead, in order to assist those who read the article for the first time, to let them know what they are truly reading about. Merely essentially stating in the lead your obvious personal opinion that Unitarianism = Christian Unitarian Theology, and then implying (but not stating) that UU Unitarians have no theology, seems to me to be quite confusing. I apologize, but unless you could somehow "unconfuse me" about this within the next two days (by Thursday morning), I feel I will have no choice but to call an Rfc to the question. In such an Rfc, I would be additionally be advocating for two more things:

1. Moving the Unitarianism article to "Unitarianism (Traditional Christian)", and
2. Creating another article to be titled "Unitarianism (UU)", which would somehow minimally disambiguate for readers of that page that Humanism/ Atheism is the dominant theology of UU Unitarians.

I would also be placing a notice regarding this discussion at the UU article page, as any decisions about the Unitarianism article itself would obviously have a major impact the page about the largest self proclaimed Unitarian organization, the UU Church. If we could somehow settle this before the RFC, I would "leave good enough alone" regarding the name of that article, and will not advocate for a move. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A copy of this, and my response, can be found on the talk page for Unitarianism. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, I have just replied to your last posting at the Unitarian Talk Page. Scott P. (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comment here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Techbear, hope you won't mind I've called a third party in - that rerevert of mine is an indication I'm not entirely cool-headed, and need an opinion by someone whose judgement I trust.

Apologize for not having taken the time _not_ to revert your revert, rather than for the disagreement that prompted it. Best, 79.43.19.105 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please explain to me the alleged "non-neutral edits" of my revision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBD2000 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Because I cannot recall reverting any edits to anyone with your handle. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to the article on Edward Snowden, where you reverted my edit and called it "non-neutral" TheBD2000 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He has been charged, but neither tried nor found guilty. Ergo, he is not a criminal. Making such an assertion is false, violates the principle of presumption of innocence, and prejudices the reader to an unwarranted, prejudicial viewpoint. To assert that he is a criminal is contrary to facts and thus non-neutral. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your reversions are factually incorrect. The Republican and Democratic parties have been the two main parties since the 1850's, but before that there were other parties. The article talks about the current and historical use of Third Party. The Whigs were not a Third Party but they are also not Republican or Democrat. To revert an edit making this clear is completely unnecessary, not to mention incorrect. It doesn't matter if it is a consensus, it is wrong. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

re: Leys' defense of Mother Teresa's bulk-baptism-of-the-unwilling:

Richard Dawkins was sexually molested as a child, but refuses to condemn it, on the grounds that it didn't do him any lasting harm.

Would you advocate including Dawkins' statement in the Wikipedia article about child sexual abuse? It's a notable person making a widely publicized comment which would provide balance! DS (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to claim that I'm making a false equivalence, first read about argument from inconsistent revelations and the Mortara case. And please confirm for me that you've done the Shahada because it can't hurt and might help. DS (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I await your confirmation that you have done the Shahada. DS (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Given how contentious the topic is, and given the history of edits to the article, a change like this really should be brought to the talk page. Neutrality does not mean you can rip out anything you disagree with. Make your case, and let the community of editors decide. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently reverted my edit to the page List of political parties in the United States, which removed the Massachusetts section and the articles under it. I was wondering what the notability standards for that page are, as political designations in Massachusetts are more or less the equivalent of an organized political group that lacks party status in other states. There are currently twenty six political designations in the commonwealth, and fourteen of them have articles on Wikipedia. If those two are notable enough to be on the list, then should the remaining twelve be on there as well?

Thanks, Cran32 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My primary metric for lists is: does an article exist? If it does, and the topic of that article is on-topic to the list, then it stays. If the article itself fails notability, then I will flag the article for review; if it gets deleted, then the link in the list can be removed because there is no article. It is a roundabout way, but in my experience it seems to cause the least amount of confusion or conflict.

The list does not, and never has, required that all listed organizations be recognized as such by the state. That would be a very difficult metric to enforce: my state of Washington, for example, recognizes "major political parties," those which have had a candidate in a state-wide race within the past four years where the candidate received at least 10% of the popular vote in that race. That does not change the fact that we have numerous minor parties which organize voters and run candidates. So it makes no sense to enforce that kind of standard.

The articles describe their organizations as political parties; ergo, they should be considered political parties. If you are willing to rewrite the articles -- with impartial third-party references, of course -- to show that they are NOT political parties, then the case could be made that their inclusion on the list is off-topic. Otherwise, there is not much that can be done while remaining neutral editors. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that both articles are written in a form that specifies them being a designation, not a party. What edits would have to be made to make sure that they are not listed as parties? Cran32 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I will revert List of political parties in the United States to the original revision until further consensus is reached. This is because under what I understand, nothing should currently be listed under Massachusetts, while under what you understand, all 26 of Massachusetts' designations (12 of which lack articles) should be listed, and what is currently on the page fits neither of our definitions. Cran32 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:TechBear|<font color="green">'''TechBear'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:TechBear|Talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/TechBear|Contributions]] : TechBear | Talk | Contributions

to

[[User:TechBear|<b style="color: green">TechBear</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:TechBear|Talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/TechBear|Contributions]] : TechBear | Talk | Contributions

—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; it's been changed. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there Techbear, I did my editing back to front, I created the page article AFTER adding it to this list, so there is now a page and I have readded the convention! I'm still learning! Thanks! Surflou 15:20, 3 June 2020 (GMT)

I try to assume that is what editors do, which is why I try to phrase my comments politely with no assumptions. My approach is to create the redlink on my talk page and work from that, then link the article elsewhere only after it is finished. New articles that are still works-in-progress are not going to be very useful anyway. Cheers, and good fortune as an editor! TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm just responding to the OP on us thinking that all right-wing sites are misinformation. I debunk this, saying that while right sites can be reliable, none of them seem to cover the Plandemic story in a way acceptable on WP, that is, factual and not promoting misinfo. Many think all WP editors have a leftist agenda-- for me to be called a leftist is such a disgrace. I don't see any violation of WP:NOTFORUM, as I am just talking about the accuracy of certain sites in Plandemic's case-- in short, responding to OP. GeraldWL 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comment was "Something is wrong when Wikipedia is suppressing the free flow of information. Book burnings tomorrow?" Then, in another comment, you launched into a conspiracy about "big pharma lobbyists." This has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article, and so does not belong on the talk page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@TechBear, This has reference to your recent comment @ Talk:Criticism of Islam. On one hand the OP-IP's contention correlating WP article length and their own native language prima facie seems understandable and fallacious, on one hand. On the other hand your response sounds not only rude uncalled for WP:BITE and Red herring but also a presumptive WP:Systemic bias to an IP who has no major edit in the given article - unless you know pattern of serious grammar issues from specific sock under guise of anon edits. There seems no known WP policy allowing to WP:BITE on article talk page without serious proofs to that effect. Usually one should WP:REFACTOR. If I am missing on something pl. do help understand.

If there are any flaws in my this peer assessment and request then pl. help me understand. I request to take this friendly WP:REFACTOR request in good spirit, if you do not mind. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)