Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 28 September 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Memestream, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- JHunterJ 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of Species

Hi, thanks for your edits to The Origin of Species. One thing to note is that to comply with WP:NOR facts, analysis and interpretations have to be attributed to reliable sources, using secondary sources as much as possible. Your paragraph including the statement "Darwin's theory, in it's currently accepted neo-Darwinian form, based on the Modern evolutionary synthesis, makes natural selection the only mechanism determining evolutionary change." needs a source, and this sentence seems to contradict the linked article which describes the modern synthesis as saying that "Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection." It will be good if you can find a source to clarify this point, and something I'm trying to find time to add is that Richard Leakey comments that Darwin himself favoured the idea of "use-and-disuse heredity", and Lamarck's view differed in postulating a besoin or desire for change causing the heritable change. Will try to get onto this, thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Your comment that my claim regarding neo-Darwinism seems inconsistent with the linked page on the Modern Synthesis is not surprising given that I find that page problematic in that it fails to distinguish between the Modern synthesis as a historic milestone, and what I prefer to call neo-Darwinism, meaning currently accepted theory based on Darwins ideas. Putting this problem aside though, there is not necessarily a contradiction inherent in what I said, because the statement "Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection" seems to me only to describe the nature of evolution as observed in modern terms, not the determining mechanism. Darwin would not have recognised that sentence as describing his ideas on evolution, and I think it fair to say that he emphasised natural selection. I think his writings show some confusion in that he went to some lengths to describe his hypothesis of pangenesis based on use-disuse, and yet never recognised that pangenesis, or some such Lamarckian scheme, might be perfectly capable of producing adaptive evolution without the operation of natural selection. That's not to say that natural selection does not operate of course, it just shifts the emphasis, and I read somewhere that selection might just operate as the final 'executioner', though I can't remember where at the moment. I'll try to find it. Your comments about use-disuse versus desire for change are very interesting. I've tried to make the distinction clear on the August Weissman page, because Weissman's barrier is really at the heart of the Modern synthesis, and yet it was really only an idea without proof, and he clearly misunderstood Larmarck as he failed to distinguish mutilation from desire for change let alone use-misuse, and cut off the tails of 1500 mice in a completely pointless experiment! --Memestream 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I'll continue the discussion here and delete what you've added to my page as it's best to keep a conversation in one place. You're on my watchlist, though you can always give me a heads-up if there's something you want to discuss urgently. Thanks for working on The Origin and Lamarckism. It's a good idea to follow what's been done before on a page when adding citations. Misplaced Pages:Citation templates gives some guidance, and it works better to use the Template:Citation in lists of references when using Harvard citation, with inline "harvnb" templates in the text, as Template:Harvard citation. If citing the web or books where Harvard referencing isn't used, Misplaced Pages template filling is pretty usful (donationware, not done by me!) Hope that helps, WP:CITE gives more general guidance. .. dave souza, talk 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll bear this in mind, though when editing pages like these I am often so concentrated on trying to get to the exact truth, sitting with piles of books cross-referencing things, that I am happy to just get a good citation in the right place without thinking too hard about how to do it. I'm not sure what the template method adds either, the real problem with online citations being that all too often they come up with 'not found' after a while. I felt that Darwin had not referred to blood in his Pangenesis hypothesis, and was delighted when I eventually found that online article in nature saying so in his own words. While Misplaced Pages (rightly)isn't supposed to be for original research, I find that it is excellent for this sort of research, bringing together in one place stuff that gets to the truth of events and statements. I've worked on August Weismann recently, where I was keen to make clear the distinction between, use-disuse and mutilation. It's surprising how many textbooks get this wrong, glibly stating that 'Weismann's experiments disproved Lamarckism'. It was interesting to follow up your reference to 'besoin' too, which led me to the Lyell translation and many other comments on this matter. I don't feel I've got to the bottom of what Lamarck actually meant, as despite the translation problem I think he may have had desire in mind as well as use. --Memestream 09:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more about the subject of citations, I find that there is a real problem when citing a book or article in that the reader has to find the relevent sentence which can be buried deep in text. Using the 'find' facility and entering a key word helps, but some editors cite whole books in support of a point of view, which I don't think is good enough. One alternative I sometimes prefer is therefore to state in the article for example 'Darwin said, in Origin (p21), etc ...' which is clear, but has to be done sparingly. I suppose another alternative might be to create a separate article for citations, where the relevant text is quoted. Why do you like the template method? Is it because you like to see a list of citations? I'm not sure the list is useful, it's being able to go straight to the relevant text and find what the editor is refering to that matters to me. --Memestream 09:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Owning the term

I don't have strong feelings about the term "Neo-Darwinism", but I definitely believe that avoiding it just because creationists/IDers use it pejoratively is a bad idea. Just as homosexuals have "owned" the term queer, and atheists "own" the term atheist (which was also pejorative at one point, and still can be, of course), I think that we should not let others dictate our usage of terms. Anyways, rant aside, I'll probably start making minor contributions to the article when I feel that there is some stability to it. I try to be a "peace-maker", but sometimes it turns out that I get people from "both sides" of an issue mad at me. Ben Hocking 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. I've been quite badly upset by the ridiculous accusations that I am a creationist, which I am powerless to refute, and I take the same view as you, that the 'ownership' of terms is becoming a big obstacle to proper explanation. I gave the example a while back of 'abortion', which is probably to be found on thousands of anti-abortions sites, and so might be considered by some as "obnoxious" but I like to think that it still remains a respectable terms with a defined medical meaning! It must also be remembered that an encyclopedia is about historical meanings, not just current street-talk. I tried to tell the story of the Tavistock clinic and Tavistock Institute some time back, and did an enormous amount of research to get my facts right (nor OR, but the sort of research Misplaced Pages encourages). I'm very dissapointed to see that those pages have reverted to being more or less adverts for the current 'NHS clinic' etc, with all mention of their controversial wartime role and spin-offs deleted. I like to think that truth wins in the end, and on many pages I've worked on I've been able to achieve a lot. See you later. --Memestream 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see my article has been proposed for deletion. Perhaps you will support me in opposing that and voting to KEEP (I've written my objections). --Memestream 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I don't have strong feelings about it, so I don't yet know what my conclusion will be. Ben Hocking 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modern evolutionary synthesis‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no edit war. The edits reverted are different, in different sections, and have been discussed. In fact the latest was made after giving detailed notice on talk which remained completely without response for 8 days. That's extremely cautious and considerate editing. --Memestream 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts is still an edit war. 3rr isn't a right, it's a limit. ornis (t) 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I made an edit, following notice of what I intended, and it was reverted without any discussion despite the invitation to discuss. Reverting without comment is not accepted. I can't be bothered to quote WP, I'm sure you know it all. --Memestream 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've seen this pattern before. You've been labeled a "creationist" and it seems there are multiple editors (I will not name any of them) who will now assume that every edit you make is somehow advancing the "creationist cause", no matter how minor. They may or may not come out and say it, but you'll know the reason. Unfortunately, I have not figured out how to combat this multi-pronged strategy, other than to let the little issues slide. (Your recent edit, to me at least, seems quite minor.) Ben Hocking 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Ben. Even though I disagree with you on a few items, I didn't think you were paranoid. There is no conspiracy, just that we prefer people to be straight out with other editors. There are creationist editors who we have helped develop well-written articles. I think Creation science has been co-developed. So has flood geology. So I don't think you're giving a lot of good faith to this "multiple editor" cabal. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been given 'secret' warnings, and then these warnings have been deleted on my talk page! It's all disgusting, and in the real world would be a simple case of libel. There's nothing to figure out, just support me, maybe even say these things on the article talk page for all to see, and help combat Wikipedias weakness! At least then you've done the right thing. --Memestream 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll support you when I agree with you, how's that? On this issue, I really don't know enough of the history of evolution to have an informed opinion. Ben Hocking 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you might take a look at Ornis talk page (above) and figure out the cover up they seem to be trying to plan so that their embarassing personal abuse will not be seen and give the game away during the deletion debate! Oh, and if you consider my recent edit minor, why not revert it for me and make things a bit more difficult for these folk rather than just give in.

I try not to provoke Ornis. Also, I'll point out that he's often correct. The biggest problem is a rush to misinterpret things. Finally, I definitely try not to get involved in battles over minor things. Ben Hocking 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And the USAF covered up that whole alien thingy at Roswell. •Jim62sch• 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew it!!!! OrangeMarlin 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the "cover up", I think you're the one misinterpreting this time (either that, or I'm misunderstanding you). Tim is just trying to keep the discussion on-topic, and I agree with him. Ben Hocking 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm tired. Just saw a reference to "implication of bad faith" and "hidden the offending stuff". It seems to me that if the nomination contained an implication of bad faith then that should stand, as representative of the real (unwarranted) reasons for wanting deletion. --Memestream 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend editing your comment on the deletion discussion page, too. Ben Hocking 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi there. I've been watching this discussion with interest and some annoyance. The antagonism shown by some editors towards you is understandable from their past experiences with this topic, but such personalisation is not a productive way of dealing with the issues that your comments and edits raise.

My advice on how to avoid this friction in the future is to use better sources. Read some recent reviews on the topics you are interested in and then confine yourself to summarising the conclusions of these sources. Your edits have raised so much controversy mainly because they give the impression that you have written what you think about a subject, and then tried to find sources that support your ideas. This is the wrong way to approach writing articles. If you use high-quality source material and write about the contents and conclusions of these sources, then this will save you a great deal of aggravation in the future.

Hope you take this friendly advice in the spirit in which it is given. All the best Tim Vickers 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, and thanks for helping turn this round to friendly discussion. I have more experience on Misplaced Pages than some people assume, and I often feel that people give me advice that is their own oversimplification of 'the rules'. The rules are never quite enough (be bold), especially on some pages, and of course they can and do slowly evolve. I tend to work on difficult pages, and I constantly find the same problem coming up, of what I call semantic errors. The main semantic error I battle with is one that I don't know what to call, but something like 'semantic inversion of categories'. Taking material from 'high quality source material can lead into this trap.

For example. Suppose you came across a page animal, and it said 'an animal is a dog'. You would probably cry 'wrong'. Plenty of reliable sources might be quoted at you, saying 'a dog is an animal', and many editors might scream that this was proof, but you would know they were wrong. What are you to do?

Now take a more subtle example: 'Neo-Darwinism'. This page now says that the term is mainly historical. That, I am suggesting is because when you look into primary historic texts (as I have done) you find people in the past saying "George Romanes used the term to refer to the theory of Wallace and Weismann", and you find that indeed he did. Note: this is an ambiguous statement. We cannot know whether he used the term to refer ONLY to that theory, or (as I now think) because by neo-Darwinism ("new Darwinism") he meant 'the new or latest ideas', and so he referred to Wallace and Weismanns theories as "neo-Darwinian" quiet correctly.

Authoritative sources have made this mistake (after all, they are often writing about many things and do not necessarily research deeply into what they write. Other sources have followed them, and a 'false meme' has been created. You, I suggest, are amplifying that meme, which would be a great pity. Just as an animal is not dog, neo-Darwinism is not, (and was not, exclusively) the theory of Wallace and Weismann.

How do I know that? Well by now I have perhaps tried harder than anyone on the planet to get to the bottom of the matter. I have quoted many 'primary' sources of use. When Gould, Dawkins (who has a special role in Britain promoting public knowledge of science) and others use the term in the 'pure' sense of (new Darwinian-like theory) I know I am right and the 'reliable sources' are mistaken. I want to filter the 'reliable sources' on the basis of that fact. Is that OR? Well, not exactly. The rules on OR do emphasis that 'source based research is of course essential and the stuff of Misplaced Pages' (words to that effect).

Assuming a source is 'reliable' because of its 'status' is at the root of the problem. I could expand on how psychological and sociological theory tells us that 'status' is a major force behind human ideas. I could point you to Wilfred Trotter and Insticts of the Herd in Peace and War. Or Benjamin Kidd, or a hundred other places where the phenomenon of leaders and followers is discussed. Wrong memes spread because of it, memes, and wrong memes are of course a major part of evolutionary theory. I'm getting into deep water, because this is what I do, as a polymath trying to make sense of everything with regard to evolution and social evolution and neuroscience and psychoanalysis, and ....!

Am I getting anywhere. I hope you don't just come back at me with the verbatim rules. If the rules are getting used to justify perpetuation of bad memes, through a particular phenomenon of semantic inversion, and 'status' then the rules perhaps need clarifying in that particular regard, because in the end I'm not trying to push POV I'm trying to correct this problem and make Misplaced Pages a lot better.

So neo-Darwinism, I still insist, is not 'primarily historical' (though that doesn't mean it wasn't used in the past. And, while I'm at it, Evolution is not "the change in inherited traits" - same problem, semantic inversion. You will find many primary sources, like books, that say 'evolution is the change in inherited traits from generation to generation', but only because they take if for granted that the reader knows that the book is about the mechanism of evolution, and they are using 'evolution' as shorthand for "mechanism of evolution". When the 'reliable' secondary sources copy such texts as a definition they make a contextual semantic error, because the original authors were not writing in the context of defining evolution, they were speaking from the context of explaining it. They also make the error of 'semantic inversion' becuase the original writers were not sayin 'this is all that evolution is' they were saying 'this is what I think is the mechanism'. I would say that Evolution is the observed fact of progressive change from generation to generation. That's it, nothing more. It's the starting point. Even if we discover in a hundred year's time that evolution is actually controlled by Martians, it will still be the same evolution! This stuff about changes in gene pools, no matter how correct it is, is still the theory, the mechanistic explanation of evolution, not 'evolution'.

Enough! Do you understand what I am saying? If so, and if I can get you and a few others to see this semantic inversion problem (perhaps I should make this into an essay article) clearly, then we can really make progress on a set of articles that really make consistent sense and are set to become the definitive source. Like it or not, that is what Misplaced Pages is going to become, I think, simply because more effort is going into it than other sources will ever be be able to muster. My aim is not to 'avoid friction' (though I don't set out to create it). I'm wary of 'status' and believe that to live life seeking approval or status is simply bad. If status or approval come along the way of course, that's different - the same semantic inversion error operates there too! --Memestream 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly how much experience you have of Misplaced Pages and although I admire your work on noise, this is part of the problem. Please e-mail me and we can discuss the concern I raised. Tim Vickers 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you know? You know some things, but do you know if an editor works from multiple sites/computers/IP addresses, or if different editors work from the same broadband? Are you making the semantic error of assuming that to know more of what I do is to know all of it:-)! I'd love to know how you know 'exactly', if you do. You must be God! Help I'm converted to creationism:-).

I hasten to add that I do not seek to deceive in any way, I just decided to see if I could avoid any bad experiences on one topic spilling over into another topic. I also prefer not to explain exactly what I do, and then get limited, as if 'only a psychologist knows about psychology'. I'm a lot longer out of college than you are, time to have been involved deeply in many many things. This is entirely within the rules I believe. Yes, maybe I should e-mail you, you may well be able to help me with stuff I'm working on. I can't find a simple e-mail address, though I took a quick look at your facebook entry.

I can see your perpective is that of a psychologist, while mine is that of basic biologist. I take exception to some of what you are saying like evolution is not a change in inherited traits. Biological evolution is by definition a shift in gene alleles (phenotype-inheritable traits, whether allele or epiallele) within a population over time. That is majority opinion and the state of affairs, the basis of population genetics and modeling (which is the backbone of evolution biology and provides mathematical rigor). Your POV is not appropriate for the encyclopedia article and in fact would be a disservice to the article. The whole idea of memes is not a major biological emphasized notion and one adopted by psychological and social scientist. " How do I know that? Well by now I have perhaps tried harder than anyone on the planet to get to the bottom of the matter. I have quoted many 'primary' sources of use. " Now your ego and POV are getting the better of you. I just wouldn't go there if I were you, because you will find few sympathizers. That argument is not appropriate for this encyclopedic article. GetAgrippa 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you have not responded to my question on either of your talk pages I have asked some independent admins to have a look at the edit histories of your accounts to see if they are being used abusively. report. Hope we can work this out. Tim Vickers 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just responded above, then this came up! I am pretty sure I haven't broken any rules. I've never exceeded 3 reverts, never used 'sockpuppets'. As I understand it multiple accounts for the reason I stated are allowed. Editing without logging on is also allowed. --Memestream 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit. I am willing to listen to your reasons, but trying to deceive in such a patently transparent manner makes it hard for me to see this from your point of view. Tim Vickers 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not against you

Memestream I am not against you, but just trying to enlighten you of my similar frusturations and experience and where I think your edits have precipitated the reactions you've experienced. I understand what you are saying but I encourage you to first use the Talk before an edit (especially this contentious article)and be patient. Several card carrying evolutionary biologist (one a Gould graduate) have contributed to the article to try and convey reliable pertinent info for an encyclopedia (appropriate for a target group). True subarticles have problems but we can only kill one snake at a time (it is a Medusa). I think many of your concerns about the literature maybe valid, but these are peer-reviewed articles and your concerns would be better suited for the letters to the editors in specific journals. I have found I have had to make numerous mental compromises (I still think I'm right)about how the article is written. It is a group effort and if three or four editors say no and you insist yes then you are POV pushing, but that may change as I have noted some of my suggestions finally end up in the article. I don't care about status or barnstars or anything like that either. I also have high standards of intellectual integrity that probably are not very well suited for this encyclopedic effort, although professionally it has it has served me well. Many of your concerns and my concerns keep popping up by new editors so be patient. No one disrespects you , but if you get too rabid about a subject people will likely be reluctant to entertain your ideas and work with you. For this artilce, I use the Talk and make my arguments and posits and try to gain some momementum for change. It is a frustrating process and some editors (because of their own frustrations and experiences) can be uncivil and downright nasty. I have been amazed at the resistance I have received over some points because my resistors seemed naive to the facts so I saturate them with the literatue and let it do the talking for me. If you make a posit and then cite numerous references to emphasize your point (rather than your logic use the literture and experts)then you will gain the respect of everyone-and if they read the articles you will enlighten them of their faulty retorts. Don't be insulted, don't be indignant, don't get frustrated (that one I still need help with), let the literature speak for you and most of all be patient (something I need to work on also). I hope you take this the way intended, because believe me I emphathize and sympathize greatly. Evolution biology is not my field of endeavor but a life long hobby and interest. My knowledge of the literature (still ongoing) speaks volumes that the lack of a direct tutored education in the field has not been a handicap in offering valid arguments to help the article. If it starts to drive you crazy it is time to back off, because likely you will make little headway. I would be glad to help you in any future efforts (just ping me), but right now the momentum is against you and I think I would be wasting my breath. Patience my friend. Likely the subject will be breached again if it truly needs to be finally addressed in the article. Life is often a compromise. This Wiki is a work in progress and I also take objection to some of the policy, but this is the framework we all have to work. Regards GetAgrippa 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

Oh yeah, I have a great interest in epigenetics and "neoLamarcksim". If you search through the months you will see where I have made numerous arguments related to adding it to this article. It forked into an article that I haven't really jumped on yet. You may note that I have argued that the article doesn't follow NPOV because it pushes neoDarwinism and does not develop newer ideas about EvoDevo, Epigenetics, and neoLamarckism. We may have more in common than you realize. GetAgrippa 14:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A final word in closing and an offer of hope in Pandora's box. Remember Stanley Prusiner who was treated as a pariah for his thoughts and research concerning prions and neurodegenerative disease (some people still argue against it) for years. In the end he was justified with his Nobel recognition. GetAgrippa 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that we agree for some time, and I agree with most of what you say above. What puzzles me is that you seem to think I am massively opposed, frustrated, in danger of breaking rules or whatever. I hope you realise that I have made no actual EDITS for some time now, and no attempt to change the latest attempt by others. I actually think the article will stay. Do you not? If so, I will have achieved a simple step, and will be pleased. Are you saying I should talk less, and try less hard to explain my position on talk pages? I'm in two minds over that. Talk is good, but I don't intend to make a nuisance of myself. --Memestream 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I don't know the whole history of the issues, and I am just offering some thoughts. No, Talk all you want-I do. I also had a heart cath yesterday so I am taking it easy today. I can't sit at the computer for prolonged periods so I muddle on the best I can. The outcome was great by the way!!!!Yeah. I should back to peak in a day or so. I am glad that you are content having your say, sometimes that is the best we can do. GetAgrippa 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I am shocked to find I got blocked just as I was writing on the page where the request was, and without specific reason quoting instances. It seems I accidentally made one edit on PC while logged in to lindosland. It was without consequence and certainly not sockpuppetry. Given that I have never edited one page in both names, except for that on occasion, how can it be goodhand/badhand? If that was my intention I'd have done it all the time would I not? I had written, under the reason for requesting blocking, as follows,but was unable to save it:

Memestream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, there is no 'good hand/bad hand' about this. The editing of PC in the name of Lindosland was a mistake, my being already logged on, that's all. It certainly wasn't meant to be sockpuppetry, and was one wrong log-on in very very many kept separate. It had no consequences. The thing is simply that I take editing very seriously and do not want to just 'give in' easily on controversial pages. One lot of pages I edit, as lindosland were pretty non-controversial, and as an acknowledged expert in the field of Audio, and electronics I was able to make rapid progress and create many good pages, Most of what I wrote remains, some I go back and change, to take out remnants of the fact that I used material I had written for other purposes which can appear 'essay like'. Then I started editing controversial pages, and it seemed a shame to let my Lindosland reputation get tarred by 'anti-creationist flaming' against me etc., so I used memestream. It doesn't take me to make these pages controversial, and above all I want to point out that I am ALWAYS very very polite, have remained calm in the face of attrocious personal accusations, and what's more, a surprising amount of the content that currently remains on pages from Weisman to Origin of species to Modern synthesis is actually mine! I'm intense, persistent, deep, but that's who I am. I only want to make Misplaced Pages amazingly good. To this end I have engaged in a huge amount of talk, just sticking to my case, never seeking to disrupt. Quite often, I do win through. --Memestream 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see evidence to the contrary.— Navou 18:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have indisputably done a lot of good work as Lindosland (talk · contribs). But using this account to segregate any edits potentially damaging to your reputation (particularly as you have been quite combative with this account) is a violation of the "avoidance of scrutiny" and "good hand/bad hand" sections of WP:SOCK. No one is asking you to stop editing altogether, or change your ways, but having a spare account which you use to avoid scrutiny is not acceptable. If you'd like your block reviewed by another admin, though, you can post the {{unblock}} template (see the Template:Unblock page for instructions). MastCell 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You did shoot yourself in the foot here, since the Memestream account was quite obviously a single-use account that dealt solely with controversial topics. This caused people to regard its contributions with suspicion. You might do much better with an account that people can see is a serious editor. Tim Vickers 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do it to 'segregate edits potentially damaging to my reputation' I did it, as explained, to avoid my reputation being damaged by totally unwarrented 'flaming' and personal abuse which I think you accept I have been subjected to (accusations of a hidden creationist agenda were totally unwarranted, as I think I managed to demonstrate in the end, and as you and others keep telling me, just something you have to live with). Can you get me back please? If you asked me to use the templates here, then I must have missed it, because I would simple have done that without any problem. I had not understood the potential for being wrongly accused, and the protection it offers. Perhaps your message came at the bottom of the page and was obscured by all the messages? Regards --Memestream 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at the evidence page and see that it quotes the article Loudspeaker measurement. I hope it is realised, that while I made one edit under user memestream, I commented it 'see talk' and then made the comment under user lindosland. In other words it's obvious to all that I was operating only as lindosland, and there was no good/badhand about anything written. I simply missed the fact that I had logged on incorrectly. I often have to log on mid-editing as I get logged off without knowing it by problems in the system, and when this happens and an IP address comes up I always edit over it to make clear the identity of the comment. --Memestream 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A neutral and uninvolved admin will review this decision. I agree that this is a borderline case and you did segregate the pages you edited with these accounts and that all your edits from your other account were admirable. I am sympathetic to your point of view, but you must see that this doesn't look at all good from my perspective. Tim Vickers 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim: What doesn't look good from your perspective is that you 'blew my cover' when I was entirely within the rules regarding multiple identities which make special provision for exactly what I was doing - see rules copied below. You give me credit, saying that all my edits under lindosland were 'admirable'. Please also tell me that my edits as memestream were admirable, recoginising that while controversial they were exemplory in the extent of talk engaged in, and in not over- reverting or abusing (I've actually not done many edits at all have I, not ones that were challenged, compared to the amount of talk I've been doing? I do regret making two reverts on Evolution I think, which may have got all this bad stuff going. Even there, the person who reverted my revert had failed to give reason on the talk page as required before reverting what was clearly a good-faith edit, and clearly not vandalism, whereas I did explain my reason for reverting fully on the talk page. Can you grant me that please? --Memestream 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a review of the unblock request, but a comment engendered by reviewing the discussion. I feel that Memestream misunderstands the purpose of an alternative account, and has (in likely good faith) used it inappropriately. An alternative account may be used so that the baggage that comes the main account does not effect the discussion on talkpages of subjects outside of those edited by the main account, or to remove the main account from the consequences of discussing matters deemed controversial generally or for the participation of the main account. Lastly, an alternative account may edit a subject provided that the main account does not (please note that I have noted "subject" rather than article, per WP:SOCK). From the discussion it does not appear that the username Memestream has any particular baggage which they may wish to disavow themselves from; rather it is recognised as a editor of good standing. It also appears that both the main and alternative accounts edit article (talkpages) in respect of the same subject - if not articles. From the discussion above (I haven't checked the logs) it appears that the alternative account has been used outside of the above criteria. Lastly, and again from reviewing the debate and not logs, it appears that the alternative account has been far more confrontational than that of the main account; this where the consideration of good hand/bad hand applies, rather than the alternative account being used to draw attention away from the chequered past of the main account it seems to be there to allow comment which may reflect poorly on the perceived standing of the main account. Not only is this not allowed under WP:SOCK, but it is against WP:CIVIL.

This is just my consideration upon reading the discussion here. I make no claims for accuracy in the absence of a detailed review of contributions, etc. but believe Memestream may wish to consider how their actions may be viewed by a third party, and comment accordingly. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was operating within the special provisions of the rules

I've now looked more at sockpupery rules and feel that what I was doing is explicitly permitted (as I had decided long ago when reading it):

Segregation and security

Some editors use multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

• Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

• A person editing an article as part of their work or professional life as an academic, for example or an expert in a field of advocacy who wants or needs to keep their personal interests which may be considered controversial separate.

I wanted to segregate two areas, and that's fine apparently.

I am well known within certain fields, and the second item above was a big part of my reasoning. The fact that I used (so far as I know) Lindosland exclusively on engineering-ralated topics, and memestream exclusively (ignoring one wrong log-in) for psychology,psychiatry, political correctness, evolutionary topic, and so on is clearly evidenced in the logs.

I did aim to keep my other interests out of my professional life. I think that the fact that my cover was 'blown' so hastily, before I knew what was happening, was wrong. Also, the request by Tim, that I put up templates linking my two identies was wrong. I didn't have to do that at all, did I? My use of two names was entirely for good reasons specifically exempted by the rules and my identity should not have been made known so hastily as the nature of my use of lindosland for engineering topics, to protect my identity in that area of business and keep it separate from other wikipedia activities should have been clearly apparent, as you are now admitting Tim. --Memestream 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is one way of looking at it. Another way is to look at your memestream account as an attempt to insulate your other account from disruptive behavior of the memestream account. Several people have described your behavior as disruptive, so this is a valid concern. However, I was conscious you might have genuine reasons for multiple accounts. This is why I first requested that you discuss this on your Lindosland account and suggested you e-mail me if you wanted to discuss this privately. Since you didn't do that I then commented on this account without giving any identifiable details. Since you didn't respond that that, only then did I ask others to get involved. Tim Vickers 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim: it's becoming clear to me now that you asked me to talk on the lindosland account, when it should have been apparent to you that I was not currently editing on that account very much. You gave me less than 24 hours to respond, gave no indication on the memestream account you knew I was logging into a lot, and since I didn't log into lindosland within that short period I got no notice whatever of what you were doing. There was never any talk of disruptive editing on the talk pages where I was talking to everyone, trying to make them understand some deep points, having become the centre of attention. Everything on the talk pages was very civilised and friendly. You were even having a friendly chat to me on the memestream talk page, as were Gettagrippa and others. No one ever said I was disruptive or out of order in any way. I wasn't editing at all, just talking, so no question of edit warring. Why would you do such a strange thing out of the blue? It makes no sense. Some of the comments above choose to completely ignore the rules I copied showing clearly that what I did is specifically allowed, for good reasons that are exactly in line with mine. Some people are saying that they do not agree with those rules. Well if its in the rules; that's good enough, isn't it! --Memestream 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck

Well Meme I hate this has happened to you. After further reading I see you make excellent edits and the kind of editor this Wiki needs. Sometimes your demeanor works against you, but you have always been civil and made cogent arguments (which I respect immensely and the way I expect all editors to react-unfortunately that is not always the case). One statement (I probably took out of context) sounded egomanical and that always rubs me wrong. I hope you can resolve your issues and continue to contribute to this controversial article. Good Luck my friend!!!Best Regards GetAgrippa 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gettagrippa. I was just getting to know a little about you, and wish you well.

Well, I'm disagreeing with both you and Tim Vickers on this confirmed sockpuppet. Memestream's edits showed a lack of knowledge of the basic science of evolution. His civility was lacking (but as a prime abuser of WP:CIVIL, I actually don't care). His editing of both articles and commentary on Talk pages was tendentious. I hope that not only is the block permanent, but all of his socks receive a community ban. OrangeMarlin 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nasty! 'All his socks'! You might like to consider what sort of sockpuppet editor spurns anonymity by giving his life history, web links and full identity as a well known figure out as I did under lindosland? It was to balance this openness that I sought a little isolation in areas where I felt it might be appropriate. You lack good faith and have abused me badly. --Memestream 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

I'm going to ask the blocking administrator to comment on the pending unblock request. Newyorkbrad 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the situation are as I've set forth above (immediately below the unblock request). I think this editor has done a lot of good work under his other account name. This account seems to have been used primarily to "stir the pot" on controversial issues while keeping the other account's slate clean. WP:SOCK is a bit wishy-washy here: "avoiding scrutiny" is forbidden, while "confining controversy" is permitted. In my opinion, using an alternate account to edit provocatively on controversial topics is a bad thing. This is the "Mr. Hyde" account; it's clearly been used to keep the mess he stirs up from sticking to his "good" account. That's avoiding scrutiny. He's not an innocent bystander being subjected to anti-creationist rhetoric, despite his presentation above; he's an active participant mixing it up on a controversial topic. Every time I remove an unsourced claim that lemon juice cures cancer, someone accuses me of being a paid stooge for Pfizer or the FDA. That's life on Misplaced Pages these days. I don't think that justifies me using an alternate account to edit controversial alt-med topics while saving this one for editing uncontroversial featured articles.

His use of multiple accounts has already been outed on WP:AN. I see the best way forward from here as insisting that this editor limit himself to one account. That said, I recognize that this is a gray area. It's already up for discussion at WP:AN, and if another admin, particularly one as levelheaded as Newyorkbrad, considers this block to be an overall bad idea, then I don't object to an unblock. MastCell 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am being faced with mistaken evidence. One thing I am accused of is the fact that 'both lindosland and memestream have edited political correctness'. Yes, but lindosland edited it just once on 7th July 2006, which was five months before Memestream was registered! Hardly sockpuppetry! Obviously I dipped my toe into PC, saw a lot of aggro going on there which I was wary of getting involved in, and later decided to have a go using a new name. I didn't go there to 'stir the pot' it's one of those sites that are constantly being challenged, fought over, and locked down. Many editors there were complaining of bullying. I have to live with that if I want to edit there, but don't make me responsible for it, because my behaviour there was perfectly honest and proper. In fact I only went back at one stage because someone who had seen that I had edited there asked me to give them support, and that's what I did. --Memestream 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell: your accusations are completely wrong and unsupported by evidence. I don't 'mix it up', it's not the 'Mr Hyde account' it's clearly the 'non-engineering account' as a look at the edit logs will show without a doubt. And you know perfectly well that I put up with continous personal abuse from OrangeMarlin and yet never fought back, just kept on saying that he was wrong. You are badly failing to show good faith. --Memestream 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see additional input from other admins on this situation. Please leave the unblock request pending for now. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth me pointing out, for those who have not been involved in this, that I was in the process of arguing for neo-Darwinism to be retained, having restored it (it had been turned into a redirect some considerable time ago, long before my time at that article, so I wasn't just reacting, I was trying to make sense of things. After initial cries of 'he's clearly a secret creationist, mostly from OrangeMarlin, and a request for deletion at the page, I was just starting to get some detailed consideration of the topic going, as opposed to blatant irrelevant abuse and while many voted to end the page, it was becoming obvious that they were giving the wrong reasons (OR POV etc), which were clearly not going to carry any weight since these are simply not reason to delete according to the rules. Several editors then argued to KEEP, saying exactly this, and it was becoming clear that the page would probably be kept if only because of the sheer interest in it, and the 45 pages that wikilinked to it, even before I made it into a page rather than a redirect. When two editors expressed a desire to totally rewrite it I stood back and made no edits at all, even though they took out everything I had written, and I then gave a long assessment of what they had written on the talk page. This is an exemplory approach to editing of which I am proud. I think it all boils down to some people having an irrational hatred of the very word 'neo-Darwinism', and going to any lengths to get rid of it, which is of course entirely unacceptable. Orange-Marlin described it as 'that obnoxous word' and added that any word beginning with 'neo' was obnoxous. I did not respond to this. --Memestream 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that now the cover is blown. We can't hide the fact that we all now know that Memestream and Lindosland are the same person. So I don't really see the purpose of keeping Memestream. I'd recommend that you go back to using one account, Lindosland, the unblocked account. If, in the future, you want to have another secret account within our guidelines, there is nothing per se stopping you from doing that. Let me ask you, what is stopping you from using Lindosland now? What is the benefit of having a "secret" account now that the secret is out? I'm on the fence because I didn't see any outright blockable behavior on the Memestream account, besides the bad hand, good hand stuff, but I'm not sure why two accounts are now needed. -Andrew c  00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were. I'm mystified by some of what is going on, as I thought both accounts were blocked, and when I checked half an hour ago both were. Now lindosland is indeed working, but surprisingly I see nothing to indicate that a decision to unblock was made on that but not memestream, or why.

Quite honestly, it's not such a big deal to use just lindosland, but as a matter of principle, since my use of the two accounts was exactly as specifically permitted, and since I got used to using that name, I'd like memestream back too please. Even though my 'cover' is blown, it was never intended to be that secret. You see, this never was about editing tactics at all, it was about not having everyone who Googles my name; especially those who know me personally not coming up with pages of history on topics like politial correctness, full of creationist allegations along with that name lindosland which is the name of my place of work, and closely allied to Lindos Electronics which I founded, and which is knnown worldwide, and the Lindos Psychotherapy centre which my partner founded. I want friends involved in Lindos to spot my activity that relates to Lindos easily - hence my choice of the name lindosland along with links to a very full biography on its talk page. I don't particularly want them to readily spot everything else I get involved with. That's fair enough isn't it. I might change my mind and be happy to flag the two pages as coupled later, but at the moment I'm tired of the whole thing and would appreciate just getting back to where I was. That other editors now know I'm lindosland doesn't bother me in the least, in fact it might make things easier as they can stop accusing and speculating. --Memestream 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just Googled lindosland and got 194 pages, and they are all me and all Misplaced Pages talk pages. See how exposed that makes my life! It's particularly obvious because it's a pretty unique name. Google memestream, and it's not nearly so exposing, as there are other memestream references that are not me. Seeing how my interests are all laid out like that in such a clear way, under a name known to millions through my thirty years of Lindos activity does make me hesitant to use just lindosland for my editing. You might like to note that if you Google my name, which is stated on my user page, you get to my CV with photo, family history page with photos and essays, sons' details, addresses, the lot. I'm actually quite unusually public. --Memestream 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think on balance I would recommend unblocking this account. Neither account has been used in a way that would warrant an individual block and the two accounts have not been used together in voting or talk page discussions. Although this editor does not really understand the no original research policy and does not always use reliable sources, he has not engaged in edit warring or personal attacks. In borderline cases such as these I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Tim Vickers 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First thing, if you look at this, you'll see no record of Lindosland ever being blocked. Therefore, if you could not edit while logged in as Lindosland, there may have been an autoblock on your account due to having logged in from a blocked account (although this shouldn't be the case because MastCell said that autoblock would not be checked). Anyway, I am glad that part is cleared up. Since the blocking admin wouldn't be offended, and the person who found the link and raised the concern on AN thinks blocking may be a little much, I think I'm going to say I wouldn't mind an unblock as well, but to confuse matters more, I'm going to let someone else do the deed, if they feel it's appropriate. Hopefully this will be cleared up shortly.-Andrew c  01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, as Andrew c noted, Lindosland was never blocked. Only this account was blocked, and I purposely disabled the autoblock so as not to interfere with your ability to edit using your main account. That said, it appears that opinion is generally in favor of unblocking this account. In that case, I'm fine with it - as I said, this is a gray area, and I'm happy to accept the counsel of other admins. Feel free to unblock, or I will in the AM. MastCell 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am opposed to unblocking this account. If "all his good edits" are on the other account, what purpose could it serve to have this account, which has caused much strife, unblocked? This account could easily be indef'd for disruption and bad-faith, not sock abuse, so I'm not seeing the fine detail arguments about abuse vs. non-abuse holding much weight. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 15:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  I think that if you look at the source of the strife, you'll find that it wasn't Memestream, but a misunderstanding from another editor. To me, it seems that editor (and then others) decided that Memestream was a creationist, and then appeared to view all of his edits through that prism. Ben Hocking 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have a way of looking at what material I have contributed remains, but if you have I suggest you will find that memestream contributed a very considerable amount of text currently remaining on Misplaced Pages, across dozens of pages. As examples from memory I suggest that pangenesis Gemmule and August Weismann are pages on which a high percentage of content is mine. Many new pages were created too, and remain. A look at the edit history of these pages will indicate runs of editing that were retained uncontested. Take a look at Wilfred Trotter for an example of a page where most of the recent edits were mine, and a major part of the article was written by me. The idea that 'all my good edits' were in the other name is quite false, as is the idea that I used the name only to 'stir'. Benhocking's comment above are accurate. --Memestream 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Page break - repetition

I'm a little cautious about unblocking socks where there is a question of possible issues, so please bear with me. My understanding may be incomplete and even completely inaccurate. Perhaps this is the wrong end of the stick, but why do you want two accounts? KillerChihuahua 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a valid question. Now that the secret is out, what are your current reasons for wanting a second account? Ben Hocking 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We are now going round in circles because that question was asked and answered very fully above. I'll copy it here:

"Quite honestly, it's not such a big deal to use just lindosland, but as a matter of principle, since my use of the two accounts was exactly as specifically permitted, and since I got used to using that name, I'd like memestream back too please. Even though my 'cover' is blown, it was never intended to be that secret. You see, this never was about editing tactics at all, it was about not having everyone who Googles my name; especially those who know me personally not coming up with pages of history on topics like politial correctness, full of creationist allegations along with that name lindosland which is the name of my place of work, and closely allied to Lindos Electronics which I founded, and which is knnown worldwide, and the Lindos Psychotherapy centre which my partner founded. I want friends involved in Lindos to spot my activity that relates to Lindos easily - hence my choice of the name lindosland along with links to a very full biography on its talk page. I don't particularly want them to readily spot everything else I get involved with. That's fair enough isn't it. I might change my mind and be happy to flag the two pages as coupled later, but at the moment I'm tired of the whole thing and would appreciate just getting back to where I was. That other editors now know I'm lindosland doesn't bother me in the least, in fact it might make things easier as they can stop accusing and speculating. - 22 September 2007"

and:

"I just Googled 'lindosland' and got 194 pages, and they are all me and all Misplaced Pages talk pages. See how exposed that makes my life with all my interests laid out! It's particularly obvious because lindosland is a pretty unique name, as is my own name. Google 'memestream', and it's not nearly so exposing, as there are other memestream references that are not me. Seeing how my interests are all laid out like that in such a clear way, under a name known to millions through my thirty years of Lindos activity does make me hesitant to use just lindosland for my editing. You might like to note that if you Google my name, which is stated on my user page, you get to my CV with photo, family history page with photos and essays, sons' details, addresses, the lot. I'm actually quite unusually public. --22 September 2007" --Memestream 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I have now been asked by my former partner, who now owns the Lindos Psychotherapy centre, and the Lindos site and factory, and who's name and initial are the same as mine, not to edit psychology subjects under the Lindosland name to avoid what I write being attributed to her. --Memestream 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also a matter of honour. The editor who brought the allegation has said that it was a mistake. Others, familiar with what has gone on have said that a group of editors failed to assume good faith, and sought to drive me away by allegations that I was a secret 'creationist'. I note, BenHocking that you claim to be keen on good faith issues. If I am to return to the pages where I was wrongly labelled it should be as memestream with my head held high, and a clear understanding that I did nothing wrong and that improper attempts to drive me away or discredit me through false allegations have failed. --Memestream 11:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very keen on good faith issues. However, it seemed to me that some of your reasons for using this account were no longer relevant (although admittedly, this was based on some assumptions that aren't completely accurate), and I thought it'd be good for everyone to hear what your current reasons for using this account are. It was definitely not an argument against you using this account. Ben Hocking 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not "bring an allegation" and say this was mistaken, I said you had a second clandestine account. Which you did. This was not a mistake. However, I did say this was a borderline case where there were arguments for either blocking or letting you have multiple accounts. This is why I asked from input from others to discuss your reasons for wanting this unusual status. Tim Vickers 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Tim, and I had second thoughts after writing that, but I think you alleged or implied improper use of sockpuppets such that you did get me banned, and I think you now accept that there was no such use. --Lindosland 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No. All I asked was for an uninvolved admin to look through your contributions and see if there has been any violation of policy. I noted one article that you had edited with both accounts but made no statement about if this involved abuse. The decision to block you was not mine and the decision to refuse to lift the block was not mine. Tim Vickers 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary - please undo an injustice

I accept Tim Vickers statement that he did not accuse me of anything. The grounds given for blocking this account (I do not now know who by) were 'Use of multiple accounts in a good hand/bad hand fashion'.

I do not believe that accusation could have arisen based on a proper examination of my activities, it was not alleged by editors, it came out of nowhere. The only supporting evidence given consisted of one page at which Lindosland had made an edit, a spurious log-out occurred, and I accidentally made the comments regarding that edit on the talk page as memestream. Clearly not contradictory edits or comments in any way.

Several editors and admins have now declared this to be true, for example:

• Well Meme I hate this has happened to you. After further reading I see you make excellent edits and the kind of editor this Wiki needs.GetAgrippa 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• To be clear, as Andrew c noted, Lindosland was never blocked. That said, it appears that opinion is generally in favor of unblocking this account. In that case, I'm fine with it - as I said, this is a gray area, and I'm happy to accept the counsel of other admins. Feel free to unblock, or I will in the AM. MastCell 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think on balance I would recommend unblocking this account. Neither account has been used in a way that would warrant an individual block and the two accounts have not been used together in voting or talk page discussions. Although this editor does not really understand the no original research policy and does not always use reliable sources, he has not engaged in edit warring or personal attacks. In borderline cases such as these I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Tim Vickers 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that if you look at the source of the strife, you'll find that it wasn't Memestream, but a misunderstanding from another editor. To me, it seems that editor (and then others) decided that Memestream was a creationist, and then appeared to view all of his edits through that prism. Ben Hocking 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Depite these testimonials, a clear statement from the originator Tim that 'the two accounts were never used together' and a considerable agreement to unblock, the account remains blocked. Some have asked why I need the second account and I've given very valid reasons, including the fact that the owner of Lindos Psychotherapy centre has asked me not to edit pscyhology related pages (of which I've worked on many, and some where her own Professor and colleague edits too) in the name lindosland, especially as both our real names are the same with the same initial.

I've been cleared of the original reason for blocking, I've given a very good reason for wanting this account. Please can someone now unblock? I suspect any lingering doubts in some admin's minds come from confusion, and not the facts. I repeat: take a long look at my edits and at the pages I listed that owe so much to me. You will see no problems whatsoever. --Memestream 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry fr the delay, I'm not well right now and am not able to keep up with everything very well. Thank you for your patience, your answers, and your kind note reminding me on my talk page.

I see no reason not to unblock at this time, and withdraw my objection.

Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder why do you want the Lindo account, now that its open that its you? This puzzles me. It seems that keeping two accounts separate and not accidentally making an Account A edit while on Account B would be a pain, and since Memestream=Lindosland is now public, I don't see the point in keeping the Lindosland account. But that's just my opinion, has nothing to do with policy etc, just a casual observation. KillerChihuahua 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for unblocking. I have given the reason for wanting the lindosland account above, but I'll repeat it. I did a lot of editing of audio measurement pages using it, and that is the Lindos speciality. I want people in that area who know me to know that I have contributed to those pages. Lindos Electronics has a considerable following of 'fans' worldwide who use my equipment and talk to me at exhibitions. I am also known for my contribution to The Audio Engineer's Reference Book and among many people the Lindos name is highly regarded. Though expertise in a field is not supposed to carry special weight on Misplaced Pages, it is welcomed and may help a bit with respect. Some of the articles I created use rather nice graphs (see equal-loudness contours series and also Programme level) which I prepared personally at some effort, and donated. I'd like to see continuity in recognition of such contributions. By the way, editing in two names is not 'a pain' as I tend to have periods of editing the engineering stuff and then periods of editing other stuff that last for weeks. I don't switch modes usually, and the audio pages stay pretty stable now, being less controversial than my other topics. --Lindosland 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the simplest way of dealing with this would be to change the name of your primary account to something that is not easily connected with your professional activities. There is no reason for you to need the Memestream account if you change to name of your main account. See Misplaced Pages:Changing username for instructions on how to do this. Tim Vickers 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You will see from the above Tim that this is not what I want. Nor is it necessary. Any doubts about my sincerity on Misplaced Pages have surely been laid to rest by now and I assure you my use of the two accounts will continue to be separate as in the past. --Lindosland 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The very presence of this page is now threatening to have consequences in real life. I have explained this at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry where I have pointed out that it is the use of two conflicting definitions of sockpuppetry on that page that is now causing me problems. Please take a look. I want vindication on this page, by reinstatement, quickly now, or I will seek to have all records here permanently removed. If you will unblock, then I will be happy to delete this page in the normal way, effectively archiving it and starting affresh here. Without vindication I am not happy with all these accusations, and the link to my name, on show. --Lindosland 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): In light of discussion here and a lack of serious objection from other admins who have reviewed the block above, I'm unblocking this account. Please be very scrupulous about the rules for legitimate use of alternate accounts. Request handled by: MastCell 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages