User talk:Bobzchemist

I reserve the right to delete anything left on this page, particularly if I find it offensive. Bobzchemist 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're so glad you're here! -- Perfecto 04:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobzchemist, and thank you very much for your comments and your offer of help, which I'd definitely much appreciate!

I've replied in more detail on my own user talk page. If you'd like to do something now, I would certainly encourage you to set up a "Cosmetic ingredients" (or similar) page linking off the Cosmetics page, and perhaps set out some sections it might cover. There's some information on that page which could be moved straight over.

Thanks again, and hope to see you around! -- TinaSparkle 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a third opinion on the Parkinson's Disease talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parkinson%27s_disease regarding Seborrheic dermatitis at the bottom of that page.

Seborrheic dermatitis was claimed on the Parkinson's Disease article to be a symptom of Parkinson's Disease. However, Seborrheic dermatitis is an entirely separate medical disorder that has nothing to do with Parkinson's Disease. I consequently deleted it from the article.

JFW | T@lk has prevented this deletion. It is common ground that there is no research data which shows that Seborrheic dermatitis is a symptom of Parkinson's Disease. None exists and so JFW | T@lk has been unable to provide any.

Despite there being no evidence proving that Seborrheic dermatitis is a symptom of Parkinson's Disease JFW | T@lk has claimed that it has not been disproven. Surely the onus is on the person wanting to make scientific claims to prove them. Otherwise somebody could claim that the Pope is an alien, and retain it in the article until somebody disproves it !

JFW | T@lk is now resoprting to personal attacks, which I thought was in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. Personal attacks usually means an end has come to reasoned and objective discussion, which is why I have requested your Third Opinion.

According to the edit history of the Parkinson's Disease article, JFW | T@lk has for a long time been preventing and reverting all but the most trivial amendments to the Parkinson's Disease article. The article has consequently stagnated with nothing ever really changing. What can be done when somebody attempts to persistently impose a stranglehold on an article like this ?

--David Wittgenstein 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parkinson disease article has been disrupted for a long time by the banned User:General Tojo and sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of General Tojo). New user accounts only editing this article, acting against discussion/consensus or from the very start displaying detained knowledge of wikipolicy to troll have often proved to be further sockpuppets of GT - of course not all such new user accounts and WP:AGF requires editors who watch this article against GT's actions to err on the side of caution and not bite a newcommer :-)

That said, it is not JFW who makes the claim of a link between the conditions, but it is to be found in the literature (PMID 14678527 and PMID 12699724). Wikipedia of course does not follow Scientific point of view as it is not its role to arbitrate what may or may not be correct (i.e. WP is not a soapbox even to correct real-world mistakes). To the claims above - "has nothing to do with Parkinson's Disease": the two papers cited from peer reviewed journals make such an observation and even of possible underlying mechanism of linkage. To assert that there is no link therefore would require citing from other reliable sources, rather than one editor's disbelieve that there can be such a link. David Ruben ^Talk 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Claiming that JFW owns that article in that "has for a long time been preventing and reverting all but the most trivial amendments" would seem to be a much clearer breach of WP:AGF David Ruben ^Talk 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, JFW has provided no scientific evidence at all in support of what he wants to include. All he has so far provided is an entirely unsubstantiated and unresearched claim that bears little resemblance to reality. He claims that it has to be disproven rather than proven because he has no evidence with which to prove it. Please now arbitrate in this matter because the argument is already going around in circles due to the side stepping of obvious weaknesses and criticisms. --David Wittgenstein 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear why David W. has asked you to mediate, but I will gladly cooperate with any attempt to do so. I have given quite extensive evidence in support for the consensus version, which quite unequivocally links SD with Parkinson's, even if the exact prevalence and mechanism are unknown. Having worked with other editors on the PD article I've developed somewhat of a sixth sense in recognising contributions from a user we all know as "General Tojo". Note that I never accused this editor of being a Tojo sockpuppet, it would be rather helpful if he felt able to distance himself from that disruptive sockpuppeteer that is under a community ban. JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have yet to see any evidence whatsoever proving that Seborrheic dermatitis is a symptom of Parkinson's Disease. There is none. There is merely an entirely unsubstantiated claim from citation authors who have never carried out any research at all concerning the question. Instead all I have seen instead is attempts to distract attention from this complete lack of evidence using personal attacks. --David Wittgenstein 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this discussion is never-ending. Despite the consensus view reached on the talk page, David Wittgenstein continues to argue his point without providing further proof. I have invited him to carry out edits elsewhere on wikipedia and allow the situation to calm down but he has yet to do so and, in fact, uses inflammatory language about personal attacks which is neither helpful nor true. Apologies for defacing your talk page like this and look forward to hearing from you. All the best.Mmoneypenny 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines consensus is when everybody agrees or when nobody disagrees. So there is no consensus. Your description is very false and hypocritical. I have provided substantial opposing evidence and reasoning, but it has not been addressed. It has had to be repeated because those in support, unable to answer the obvious weaknesses and inconsistencies, have been evading the questions. They simply don't address them. Why have you not invited others to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia ? Why do you have double standards by trying to impose requirements only on me ? I have not used inflammatory language about personal attacks. However, you have by making what are plainly personal attacks against me. What do you claim I have written that is untrue ? You have made false allegations without substantiating any of it. Most of what you have written is itself false and misleading. Making unsubstantiated personal attacks about people behind their backs is precisely the sort of negative behaviour that detracts from what is being discussed. You have so far provided nothing at all of use to the discussion. I suggest that you folow your own advice by editing elsewhere instead of being wantonly abusive. --David Wittgenstein 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks have been made? JFW | T@lk 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobzchemist, I think you may be interested to known that David Wittgenstein has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of General Tojo, one of our more illustrious "problem editors" who is under a community ban. Please get in touch with me if you have any questions. I still do not know why he picked you as a mediator. JFW | T@lk 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff was being tested to see if he could take part in reasonable and rational discussion. The answer was obviously no. A complete lack of facts, illogic, false claims - he tried them all. When he was frustrated by his stupidity becoming apparent he tries to get rid of the opposition. It's pathetic really. Thank you for all your assistance. --Hed Brnger 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaah, talk about throwing someone into the deep end! (American reference to a particularly cruel method (probably apocryphal) for teaching someone how to swim by dropping the untrained non-swimmer into the deep end of a swimming pool with a sloping bottom)Let me start by saying that, after reading the article and all the commentary, I don't feel particularly competent to render a professional opinion on any part of this controversy. Strictly as a layman, on reviewing the cited links I found them credible enough to support the conclusion that Seborrheic dermatitis is a symptom of Parkinsons. As near as I can tell, Wikipedia is not a place where we are trying to make expert-level conclusions on the validity of published studies. I think it should be enough to cite the studies, mention the controversy, and move on.

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[1]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[2] or History of Northeast China[3][4] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for this direct approach. In the world of float tanks shampoos are necessary but also cause a problem since they contribute foaming agents, fats, and colours into the float tank. The worst symptom is a milky colloid which is very hard to filter away or otherwise remove. Since you are a cosmetic chemist, could you advise a formulation oar existing brand which is is simple grease removing shampoo with little or no foam and no added conditioner? We make float tanks and wish to find the perfect shampoo.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the comment I left on your talk page, or comment here with a way to get in touch with you and I will be happy to discuss this further.Bobzchemist (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Bobzchemist. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob. I saw your recent comment on Austrian School and the Krugman statement. You are correct that, per WP policy, it is not our job as editors to scrutinize Krugman's analysis for errors. That point was explained by several editors in the course of the talk page thread. For that reason, among others, I don't feel that your proposed edit would be good text for the article. Moreover, that is no longer the objection of the holdout editor, user:Byelf2007. In his most recent message, he states a different objection (concerning Krugman's use of a graph) here [5] and as you can see -- in that section of the talk page -- I have proposed a simple edit which would fully address his current concern. I commend your interest in mediation of content disputes, but the situation here is a case of a single editor insisting on his own view in violation of several WP policies, and to be frank it is a view which reflects a fundamental confusion about the issue. The view denied by user:Byelf2007 is clearly and explicitly stated here [6] and strangely enough Krugman himself rebukes our holdout editor here in the final paragraph: [7]. I am concerned that your good-faith attempt to mediate here is only going to reopen an this issue in a way that is not constructive, and to the extent you wish to remain involved I encourage you to give a careful reading to the entire tortured discussion on talk. Thanks again for your good will here. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC), I have deleted/ self-censored my comment. I have no further interest in involving myself in this issue, as I regard it to be irredeemably un-mediate-able.

FYI the issue was resolved around April 1. Thanks for your interest. You may delete my comments above if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobzchemist. 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)[reply]