Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 31 December 2007

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Nondistinguished archive /Archive 8

Censorship

I do not know of any Wiki rule or policy that gives one editor the right to censor the contribution of another editor. If you have a problem with the contribution I am trying to make to the Clairvoyance article, please intelligently and articulately communicate your concerns on my Talk page. Simply clicking on Undo, as you have done before, is not science. It is censorship. If it continues I will have to commence DR action. Best wishes.RAmesbury (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC January meetup

Sezz Medi certainly seems like a decent place. Is it the type of back room that we would have to reserve in advance? In case you want any more ideas, I'm going to apologize in advance for insulting your knowledge of the neighborhood and point you to the Wikitravel page on the Upper West Side. Also, are there any other non-restaurant activities/places on the Upper West Side that people might be interested in visiting? Another thing, I'm going to be mostly off-wiki on a trip for the next week or two, so I'm going to leave some instructions shortly at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/NYC on how to send out the invites if I don't get back by December 1 or so. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait till a week or two before to get a good estimate of attendance at the restaurant. By all means go ahead with the possibility of a tour at AMNH (and I'm a big fan of what Tyson has done with the Hayden) or the Columbia Libraries.--Pharos (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My only concern would be that last time very few people (three of us) came to the 'pre-meetup', though this may only be because it was outdoors (the Brooklyn Botanic Garden) and the weather was borderline. I just wouldn't want to disappoint any people who arranged a special tour if the turnout was low.--Pharos (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any updates on this front? I'm going to be sending out the mass-invites very soon.--Pharos 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Yea, verily, forgive me; for I have taken the bait. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Why won't they let you become one? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you? Are you pushing the opposite or searching for balance? P.S. Should I have responded here or on my page? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How do 'you' determine what a Psuedoscience is how do you handle the transition stage that some Pseudosciences will undergo towards becoming a science? Are acupuncture and chiropractic pseudosciences? --Anthon01 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

If you need some support putting the rational view on pseudoscience articles then I'm always willing to help. Nick mallory (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Willo'-the wisp vs Ghost light

The former is found in swampy lands, while the latter is found in places that are not swampy at all. The Marfa Lights are found in a desert environment. Swamp gas was used as a explain all panacea by the US govt. and military for nearly everything paranormal until strange things were reported in space, and other places that are not swampy at all. One theory about some Ghostlights are that they're some kind of electrical discharge similar to ball lightning, generated by quake faults running through piezoelectric minerals, such as quartz and quartzite. 65.163.112.205 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of speculation from cold fusion

Thanks for removing all of that speculative nonsense from cold fusion. Would you mind looking over hydrino theory and Randell Mills? These two are about a particular form of transcendent pseudoscience, which unfortunately seems to have at least one lackey - User:Pcarbonn, who is also very active on cold fusion. I've been trying to hold the line, but another set of hands might help. Michaelbusch 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch

I see you've taken him under your wing. I told him that you are wonderful. Hopefully you can shepherd him through any struggles so that he does not succumb to Wikifrustration. All my best. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hello! What exactly do you see as anti-science about me? I don't feel this is true and would like to clear up any misconceptions. Thanks, --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your voting comment. I have posted a response -- Manning (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force GA hold

Thank you for letting us know about your concerns. I have responded to your message on the GAN talk page. Regards, EyeSerene 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

HM

Apologies for incorrectly intertwining our respective issues with the ArbCom's decisions. Your point regarding accomodationism is well taken. Antelan 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry I didn't show Assume Good Faith with your repeated redirection of Ghost light without consensus. I don't quite follow how WP:AGF can be used as rational for redirection of a page, but I'm going to stay out of the page. I hope the issue is resolved in a civilized manner. -JWGreen (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro, Re.:Will-o'-the-wisp

The intro does NOT adequately explain why is that there is NO swampy lands where Ghostlights are seen. The Marfa Lights are seen in a desert area, as is a similar light in IRAN, a desert country. This may cause people to believe that Misplaced Pages does'nt know the difference between a ghostlight and a Will-o'-the-wisp. Is Marfa, Texas and Iran swampy ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do You....

...live near a (any) area(s) that has one or more in it ? I am currently in a location that has four of these things near me. The lights are at Gurdon, Arkansas, Marfa, Texas, Crosset, Arkansas, and there is another one in Texas, and I've got word of one in the Missouri "Bootheel". Would it be "Original Research" to go out and see these "ghostlights" and place info obtained on here ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

Thanks for the note (and apologies for the late reply; I don't Wiki much at the weekend). The consensus at WP:GAR seems to be for a renomination, so if that continues, once the process there has run its course I'll renom if noone else gets there first. All the best, EyeSerene 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you - there are elements of WP:POINT (although maybe not WP:REDFLAG) going on here. I think I can see where he's coming from (I've got a Physics background too), but I also think in the context of the article his objection is not as important as he believes it is. I'll comment in a similar vein elsewhere; maybe we can get some compromise before this gets out of hand. EyeSerene 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup updates?

I don't mean to pester you by posting this again, but do you have any updates on Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#Other possibilities? It's about thirty days from now, and if we're planning anything else, it would be best if we informed people about it as far in advance as possible (but if it'll take a week or two more to schedule, that's fine also). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadbeater and Besant

You might want to have a look at what happened to the Charles Webster Leadbeater article as well. Ditto for this on the Annie Besant article. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reported RAmesbury for making changes for which payment was offered on Anti-Relativity.com: . I thought you might be interested. Antelan 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch - again

Thanks for trying to intervene in the disruptions to Talk:Quackwatch, but I hope you dont mind my reminding you that such discussions are best taken to another forum. You might also want to contribute to Talk:Quackwatch#Continued_disruption_of_talk_page or WP:ANI#Quackwatch_talk_page, which are both related. Additionally, an RFC/U might be appropriate at this point. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, another forum is in use. Not on the disruption, but related: Misplaced Pages:RSN#Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all-out baiting you. WP:HARASS and WP:NPA probably apply too. I appreciate your keeping cool in spite of it all. Probably the best thing is to WP:DNFTT. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take a break from Quackwatch. They're obviously getting to you, and you're starting to respond in a fashion to similar to their own. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on cold fusion

Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Let's all work together and stop the edit warring at Quackwatch. It is delicate right now and we are trying very hard to reach a consensus after long debate. I hope that you can help be part of the solution and refrain from future edit wars. Thanks! -- Levine2112 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy AGAIN

Thanks for the help out. People are starting to get afraid of standing up to these nutjobs. Many of the SPOV admins are running scared after what happened to Adam Cuerden. I'm not sure how long we can fight without the help of truly neutral admins. OrangeMarlin 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I have a question for you about the nature of plausibility over at Talk:Homeopathy#Plausibility. Curious Blue (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

I've already sought advice on the situation with Levine2112. Best not to accuse anyone of it at all. Even if you're absolutely sure, only the most blatant cases will ever get through WP:SSP (where an editor is clearly doing nothing at all other than just taking another editor's side). While you could probably convince others that these editors have been recruited to help Levine, and are being told what to say and when, it still isn't enough for WP:SSP. Best to take treat it as a behavioral issue. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell, et al.

I suggest you provide diffs, and at least a few for each editor. Something like you did for User_talk:Levine2112/archive5#Please_use_care_when_declaring_.22harassment.22 Levine would probably be enough. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"appeal for help"

You asked at my talk about "where I received appeal for help"; it wasn't addressed to me personally, it was a note someone posted in some public place, e.g. a project talk page. At the time, I was unfamiliar with QW, you (although I think I've noticed your edits in the past), Levine2112, etc, so I didn't recognize any names and don't recall any. Probably it was the same place that Arthur Rubin heard about it, he's a mathematician also. I'll try to find it, it's a fair question. Pete St.John (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the RFC, which is a section in the QW:talk page itself. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page, and I replied, for convenience reproduced here:

You obviously have a problem with me

But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. However, this is Misplaced Pages and criticisms of people's ideas and attempts happen all the time. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. I note that you had no way of knowing that the consensus was fake as you did not know the personalities or the sides involved at the time. You seem to make a singular point that people should be aware that QW is not peer-reviewed because QW discusses peer-review itself: however, such a criticism is not good for Misplaced Pages unless it can be directly sourced. I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot or some other blog-forum. That seems to fly in the face of all sourcing conventions at Misplaced Pages You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that you make accusations (veiled or otherwise) faster than I can address them. This is the fastest-paced controversy I've been in so far, although others have had bad days.

1. Citing a reference for my claim that you accused me of tendentious editting. I overgeneralized the word; using it to characterize your characterization of me. So I'm trying to go through QW talk to piece together specifics, then explain myself at the ANI with them. One might note, that "I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot" could be construed as implying my contribution was contrary to wiki policy, an example of what I overgeneralized as "tendentious" (when really I was thinking "contentious", btw). You may have had a good point there.

2. Citing a reference to the "request for help" I mentioned. It's this RFC. You may notice that my first edit to QW:talk was in the section labelled "A user has requested...".

3. Are you accusing me of being an alt-med-POV pusher?

4. I do, in fact, know why I have problems with you. (By knowledge I refer to sporadic proximate causes, in your editting, which I am working to document; I only have hypotheses about your philosophy or raison detre). I'm working on documenting it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your replies at my user space. Pete St.John (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudoscience

There is a clear consensus on the talk page; see the section Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Awaiting_wording_that_justifies_classification_here. On December 4th I suggested that we wait a week and then archive. There was general agreement. It's 12 days later. Hgilbert (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

You probably forgot. Remember the series of edits that CrohnieGal started? This was discussed . Please revert your last edit. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The follwoing are excerpts from . CrohnieGal wrote, Why not just remove all of the Mission Statement? It's really not that important. Along with the removal of the Mission Statement remove the names of those who are supposed to be keeping watch over articles. IMHO, all of this is unnecessary, the title Mission and scope. If that is removed then the warring hopefully will stop, at least about this. --CrohnieGal 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, I think that's an idea worth considering. Anthon01 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your wrote, I'm in favor of anything that makes this article have less text at this point. ScienceApologist 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)"

Antelan wrote, Crohnie I think you've got a great point. Antelan 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is just after his talk page edit. Please note he removed all mention of the advisors. You have now replaced those advisors by putting them in another section of the article. Please revert the edit. Anthon01 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01, on the talk page after my edit you stated, "I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text." Why are you speaking so aggressively to SA if you think this? I was the one who made the edit, and you don't see me vigorously defending it. These folks are trying to improve the article, just as I am. It will take time, but a good article will result. Antelan 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? How I am suppose to know that you are not vigorously defending the edit and what difference does it make whether you are defending it or not? I am not speaking aggressively. I'm simply reminding him of the agreement that he was a party to, understanding it was a major point of contention in the edit war that has been going on. Anthon01 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Baumgardner

I just did a citation count on John Baumgardner and was quite startled at the results. He could have had a very good conventional career. I hadn't realised that--what a pity he got diverted into nonsense. DGG (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour

This is really coming out well. So, the tour would be of the astrophysics division? Theoretically, Wikipedians would best connect to physical archives and technology infrastructure, but it would probably be best in general to just go for whatever is most interesting; and I'm really ignorant of what else you might have in the back rooms of the astrophysics division, so use your best judgment. One thing I personally always wanted to see was the AMNH shelves of fossils and other specimens, but I realize that would be in a different division.

Your suggested start time seems good to me; noon might be more attractive to people than 11 AM — also we should give some thought to the ending-time, keeping in mind we have to get to Columbia by 2:30.

The sooner we can post a specific starting time and meet-up point (nevermind the specifics of what we see on the tour), the sooner we can collect signatures — I'll put a special section on the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC page for the museum RSVPs. Thanks for all your work on this.--Pharos (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am a Field Associate in Invertebrate Zoology, and a volunteer in (invertebrate) Paleontology, at AMNH. I live not very far away from AMNH. I can get 5 people in to the Museum for free if that is helpful, and can also get 5 free tickets to a special exhibit or whatever. However I don't think I can manage to get people behind the scenes in the fossil department on a weekend, because the person I work for is not there on a Sunday. But I could maybe ask around just in case another staff member might be up for it. Anyway, I am willing to help out in whatever way I can easily manage. Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I know a lot more about living mollusks than I do about fossil ones by the way. I will keep in touch and let you know if it seems I can get any behind the scenes access for that Sunday. It would help if I knew roughly how many people it might be. Invertzoo (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shelves of living mollusks would be fun, too. Really, I think I would find it interesting to see any of the back rooms with giant rows of shelves storing various types of specimens (biological, mineralogical etc.) — or at least this is my cherished mental image of the behind-the-scenes of a natural history museum. As to attendance, I would plan for about 10 at this point, but when we set up the RSVPs we should get something more accurate.--Pharos (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup

Hi,

I came across the NYC meetup link in the top section of a wikipedia page. I am from India but I am currently in New York City and would be here till the end of Jan. I am interested in attending the meetup. But I have never attended any wikipedia meetup. So, I am not really sure about the agenda of such meetups. Whether the meetups are more local in nature(nyc projects) or there are discussions on general wikipedia topics. I did see someone mentioning a talk on history of wikipedia on the meetup page. Gaurav1146 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets on the astrology page

Hey, so... someone, probably Rumbird or one of his cronies, seems to be using sock puppets on the astrology page in order to offset the consensus on the disputed paragraph in the opening. User:SciFiApostle appears to be the first one that was set up, probably in a lame attempt to mock your user name, and now the latest is this one User:Random-chess. The contribution history on both clearly shows that there is sock puppetry going on here. Do you want to do anything about this, or do we just have to endure the never ending edit wars? I'm sorry that many of the astrologers who end up on wikipedia are crazies. I've had to do battle with a few of them myself in the past, and I kind of lost interest in Misplaced Pages for a while as a result of it. We're not all crazy though, and I appreciate the work you have been doing on the astrology page to keep it 'on the level', so to speak. So, keep up the good work. --Chris Brennan (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not really sure if Rumbird is the ringleader at this point. User 'Budfin' appears to be in on the latest round of reverts to that section of the article, and a new sock puppet named 'Ali the Munificent' appears to have been created recently as well. Without being able to identify who the ringleader is it is hard to launch a formal complaint. --Chris Brennan (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Close to arbcom violation

SA: I think that Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Titles, especially the “ulterior agendas” remark, is very close to violating Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted, please be more careful. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And User:Martinphi of course gets a free pass for his disruption in spite of his arbcom restrictions. Nonetheless, SA, you should keep to the straight and narrow both because it's the right thing to do and because you don't want to give "them" ammunition. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See responses on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed..

Thank you for the barnstar, what I nice surprise it was to see it there. I really appreciate it that people have realized I was trying to help everyone and the article. I now will try to mend some fences. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationists and Homeopaths

You're one of the few editors that I've noticed that is like me, editing the bullshit out of Creationist and Alternative medicine articles. I've been working to getting Herpes zoster to FA, and I've noticed 2-4 faith healers (oops I mean alternative medicine types) who are trying to get their POV faith-based cruft into the article. The virologists editing the article aren't noticing them, because they usually stay away from the crap that we deal with. Do you mind helping keep the cruft out? You don't have to be an expert viruses, just an expert in the faith-healer objectives--you know, don't take medications, just drink monkey piss and you'll be perfect. OrangeMarlin 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH Tour

I am not going to be there for it, thanks though. See you at the meet! michfan2123 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey ScienceApologist, I am not interested in the AMNH tour so much, but the CU library tour was tantalizing... what are the odds of that happening still? • Freechild'sup? 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to find out if I can get anyone behind the scenes in "my" sections of AMNH. As far as I can tell, the paleontology section will not be a possibility because it seems that no senior staff members will be in on that Sunday to "sign off" on it. I will try for invertebrate zoology, but that may well be the same problem. (Of course if there is anything in the public parts of the museum I can talk people through I will do so, but it could be that the astronomy stuff will take up all of the time available.) In any case if you ScienceApologist have any suggestions I will be glad to consider them. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am so psyched about this. AMNH & Hayden have been one of my loves since I was in grade school, and I visited them the first time in the 1950s. However, I am desolated about the destruction of the old Hayden Planetarium from 1935. It was a wonderful and beautiful building, and I hated to see it replaced by something so high tech. It's harder to find references to the Hayden now, since it seems overshadowed by Rose. Sorry if you all feel differently, but I have a thing for old buildings. Thanks so much for all this work in setting it up. — Becksguy (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I am just popping in to wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy holiday! May 2008 bring everyone a wonderful year. Happy editing! --CrohnieGal 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the good guys stand up

I hope you got a chance to read what Guy said here. Sometimes it's worth the effort. OrangeMarlin 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a personal essay on why the panel is wrong by a cold fusion advocate, and needs cleaning up. Can you help? Guy (Help!) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with science...

		The Original Barnstar
		And so it was spoken that "...The null hypothesis was rejected; SA is richly deserving of a Barnstar...", and behold, a barnstar fell from the heavens! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Force

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Force you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I have just begun the review of the article, it may take a little while to completely finish. SriMesh | talk 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Force article

Sure, I'd be glad to help on the force article, but I may not be able to get around to anything these next week as I am pretty busy, I'll just do what I can. For the free body diagram on the article, I have made a quick beta, just tell me what you think of it and what else needs to be done: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Beta_of_Freebodydiagram2_pn.png Also, we probably should fix the the Free body diagram article as everything there is labled as Weight. -- penubag  02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Because every time a fringe view gets undue weight the wiki dies a little. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hint: the answer is both

Which is more annoying/disruptive: Inventing new physics terms ("thermodynamic history") or abusing difficult to understand physics concepts ("quantum" anything)? Antelan 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Regardless of what you think of the edits of others, the incivil language used in this edit and its summary are not acceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His comments were an accurate description. The concepts Whig is trying to push are indeed "garbage" and "drivel." No need to sugar-coat it; to do so might imply that those concepts have a tiny shred of credibility, which they do not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

lol tell that to the ArbComm--feline1 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed uncivil to label another's editor's edits as "garbage" and "drivel". Obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's outright garbage and drivel you just wrote, Dlabtot. Sometimes people write garbage and drivel. I myself have done it. Have I just now been uncivil to myself? God, I think sometimes the civility plea is so lame! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To answer your question, yes, it is rude and uncivil to purposely repeat rude and uncivil behavior, in a conscious effort to offend and annoy others. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not consciously trying to offend or annoy. In fact, I believe what I'm trying to do is describe. Is civility now purely in the eye of the beholder? I thought intent was important. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really incivil to call a spade a spade... -- RG 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not in any way uncivil to mercilessly edit fringe viewpoints inserted into an article. It is not in any way uncivil to demonstrate why they are fringe theories and in what way they contradict basic principles of science. Misplaced Pages policies are pretty clear, however, about insulting people or their edits. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but this is the first I heard that we aren't allowed to "insult" people's edits. I mean, sometimes people make bad edits. Am I simply not supposed to talk about it? Or am I supposed to lie and say that they aren't bad when they bring them up on the talkpage? Seriously, are we going to resort to policing civility that carefully? Funny, I thought that Misplaced Pages was not censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that insults are uncivil. Not just in wikispace but in all contexts. This is a basic concept of social interaction - so basic that I deem it to be beyond my ability to explain to you. Dlabtot (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as they say in my discipline, if you can't explain it then you might as well be wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the level of success you've enjoyed in attempting to explain things to Whig, you might want to reconsider the utility of that adage. Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no convincing true believers. I explained myself perfectly well. If he likes to stick shit in his ears and bury his head in the sand, that's his problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for passing Europa's GA

But Sandy Georgia has commented on the talk page that the pass was incomplete. Not sure what needs to be done so if you could connect with her on the issue, I'd appreciate it. Once again, thank you very much! Serendious 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, and general discussion on Civility

Howdy. Saw your post on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism re discussion of appropriate sources at Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? and commented on that. Came here to say hi. Saw some discussion of Civility issues on this page.
I've been discussing Civility with various Misplaced Pages editors lately, and have come up with a "boilerplate" paragraph to use when the topic comes up -- User_talk:Writtenonsand#Civility.
IMHO at its most basic Misplaced Pages:Civility comes down to, "Participate in a respectful and civil way. ... Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."
Another way to consider it is as a question of rhetoric: It's one thing to be right, and it's another thing to convince people that you're right. Civility is a useful technique for helping to convince people -- and on the other hand incivility is quite likely to make it more difficult to convince others that we're right.
It's also extremely important to remember that civility is not a 1-on-1 matter -- every post on Misplaced Pages is likely to be read by dozens of anonymous users, and anything that makes us look good by comparison with those who disagree with us might help to convince them that we're right. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spent more time dancing with the fringe theorists, you might change your step. I actually find it refreshing when people invoke WP:SPADE, because it's a reminder that there are people who actually understand and cherish (insert topic here) enough to become righteously angry. Antelan 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'righteous anger' has no place at Misplaced Pages, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. These editors that take it upon themselves to "defend" a position, be that a mainstream position or not, are at the same fault as those that defend fringe theories. There is no need for "vigilantism" in Misplaced Pages, as there are many resources available to us: the extended community of editors. Ask for help instead of fighting the hordes alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would even venture and say that these attempts to be the "sole defender of science", or "calling a spade a spade", are counterproductive. SA: you may consider the possibility that you may be doing more harm than good with your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. SA is doing a service with the attitude that is brought to each one of their edits. When you coddle these fringe POV pushers for too long, pages get completely destroyed. For example, look at the homeopathy article. And every article on intelligent design. Or the articles on creationism. Or maybe the articles on astrology. All of these articles are in a state of constant attack from people who don't have to worry about constructively editing because we, at Misplaced Pages, don't want to hurt their feelings by invoking WP:SPADE and would rather nurse them along until they are eventually banned for being a sock or a DE but only after they have pissed off the royal lot of editors minding the pages in question. When people are hellbent on believing their own fringe beliefs, no amount of civility will ever convince them otherwise. Baegis (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jossi here. Not because I give a damn about the delicate sensibilities of fringe POV-pushers, but because in the long run it's a more effective strategy to take the high road. If "our side" stays civil, it makes "their side" look even worse when we go through RfC, ANI, and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Baegis, your rejection of WP:CIVIL is duly noted. However, it remains Misplaced Pages policy. Raymond arritt, I would also like to note that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. You might want to remember that when you start thinking in terms of 'your side' and 'their side'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For interest's sake, I'd love to know the extent of your involvement in contentious scientific topics. As a neophyte, I thought the same way you do. There is no a priori "us", nor is there an a priori "them." After months of editing, though, things do roll that way on certain topics. For what it's worth, this same mentality does not carry over between "sides" when they co-edit non-contentious articles. The mentality is topic-specific. Antelan 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground is not my opinion, it's an official Misplaced Pages policy. I acknowledge the fact that it is a policy that you are having difficulty following. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that a single editor is doing any "service" to the project by purporting to represent and defend a POV in this manner. Misplaced Pages is a community of people, and when an editor becomes a "lone ranger" it sends the message that the community is not relevant, weak, and incapable to stand up to challenging disputes. Any such editor is in fact diminishing the community and the project by that type of lone ranger behavior and mind-set. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

^ And this comment applies equally to a 'posse' as it does to a 'lone ranger'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not a lone ranger. There are a few others willing to take a stand, but they are too few, and too easily discouraged when faced with aggressive nonsense. Editors who tenaciously promote the idea that Immanuel Velikovsky was a great scientist, that we can use tape recorders to talk to dead people, or that the science behind global warming is a sinister UN plot (all of which I have encountered) are not building a better Misplaced Pages. To pretend otherwise is madness. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are unwilling to abide by Misplaced Pages policy are not building a better Misplaced Pages. To pretend otherwise is madness. Dlabtot (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but see, one can engage the swarm and abide by policy. That's the best way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy also includes IAR, a lovely paradox that makes it impossible ever to be in full compliance with WP policy. This is intentional. Antelan 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we really took Misplaced Pages:Civility at face value it would be unenforceable and therefore meaningless, because banning a violator would be "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" and thus uncivil. I like ScienceApologist's philosophy better than how he puts that philosophy into practice. Art LaPella (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes they are 'engaging the swarm' is clearly not assuming good faith. And Misplaced Pages policies are not meaningless or paradoxical. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

<RI arbitrarily> What the hell is civility? Who decides what is civil and what is not? Why be civil, whatever the hell that means, to anyone proposing that Aliens have invaded the earth, that Bigfoot exists, that some supernatural being created the world 10,000 or so years ago, or that a superdilution of chemicals has any effect on the human physiology? Civility is a matter of interpretation, used by individuals to suppress ideas. This is well known. Nazis did it very well. I stand by ScienceApologist and others on this point. It's time to stand up to bullshit with verifiable, reliable, and widely accepted sources for anything written here. And those who chose not to do so, do not deserve anything but our absolute scorn. If they want to write bullshit, go to Conservapedia. If you want to write that Homeopathy violates every law of science (and I dare say every law of ethics), then that's a POV that is supported by a vast wealth of research. And if you have to be a little less civil because the other side relies upon Misplaced Pages legal system rather than reliable sources, then I say "fuck them" and get them out of the project. As Raymond said above, to do otherwise, is insanity. (OK, I paraphrased Raymond.) OrangeMarlin 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Free body diagrams completed

WP:WQA alert

Be advised, I've posted an alert on WP:WQA. Dlabtot (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey S.A! I just saw something posted over at WA. I checked the difs that Dlabtot posted. I think there might be some minor issue. If I can be bold to suggest: be a little more careful with some of your comments that might be misinterpreted as judgmental of the editor. I say this because, as my momma used to say: you can kill more flies with poisoned honey than with poisoned vinegar.

Having said that, I went back and looked through the entire Talk Page, and I can see why you may have written what you did. Keep fighting the good fight. I think it was Donald Sutherland playing "X" in JFK who said "Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth. And the truth is on your side, Bubba." Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a great XKCD comic on this topic: Flies. Antelan 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was renamed to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist.2FMartinphi. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom restriction violation

You and User:Martinphi have both been blocked for violation of arbcom restrictions. See for more details. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

This block by User:Rlevse was done despite my attempts to communicate with the user about his opinions vis-a-vis arbcomm restrictions. This admin has consistently ignored my requests for clarification, and, indeed, simply reiterated points without providing explanation. The admin then proceeded to block me without providing justification any more than a link to a rather extended discussion at arbcomm enforcement. I note that this discussion does not seem to indicate a consensus was reached one way or the other regarding arbcomm enforcement, and it was a discussion to which I was not privy. I see this as being nothing short of an administrator over-stepping his bounds and blocking without regard for procedure. I should be allowed to offer defense for supposed breaches of "incivility" and "personal attacks", something I was not permitted to do when the block was initiated. I fully reject the claim that rules of civility and personal attacks were breached by myself (see below), so I ask for the following: I be given an opportunity to defend myself against the accusations that I violated my arbcomm restrictions. Rlevse respond to my queries I left regarding both warnings that were placed on my talkpage. Rlevse get consensus before blocking like this in the future: especially when there is a controversial matter as this. I'll also note that I'm currently trying to oversee the improvement of the force article which is under a deadline as well as organize the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC meeting that is happening in two weeks from today. This block severely hampers my ability to contribute in these areas totally unrelated to the arbcomm. I also believe that User:Rlevse acted without proper consultation on the matter as I can see no other corroborating administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are more than welcome to make your case here, on your talk page, but as per the Arbcom restrictions, the block is perfectly justified; any instance of incivility is just cause for a block. As an aside, stating that the blocking admin should be recalled over this isn't the best way to garner support or sympathy for your situation; it comes across as vindictive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 31 December 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.

(edit conflict with my own comment) Arbcom rulings are factual and functional, the end of a long trail of dispute resolution. The ruling is intended to end the patterns of behavior that led to such a trail of dispute, and users are expected to take them as such. If breached, enforcement is usually going to be the norm that might be expected.

The decision after that is simply, do DIFFs of your editing show breach of those rulings. They do, clearly. The blocker has shown this and I concur the diffs evidenced are diffs showing incivility and the like. You have gone through the entirety of dispute resolution and the conclusion was you have spoken uncivilly and assumed bad faith unhelpfully, and that this was then directed to end. The length of block is reasonable, within the ruling, and not excessive.

I do hope you will discuss (civilly) and take on board what arbcom and community norms both say about these things. Anything you can achieve in your good editing (which I have experienced and found very productive I should add) will not benefit from incivility, nor will uncivil speech gain anything that could not have been gained equally without it. In many ways your editing is fine and above average, and usually not a problem. Your tendency to an problematic style of conduct is what is at stake here. Decline, with regrets. — FT2  04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate you quote a diff that is supposedly incivil or assumes bad faith as I wholly reject the notion that this is the case. Further, is it right that an admin refuse to address my questions about warnings after being made? I find that attitude more than dismissive: it's unhelpful to the project. Finally, what's to be done about the unrelated activities that I coordinate? Are they to simply be canceled for want of an ability to communicate? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(Responded below - edit conflict) FT2  04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding civility

This is the quotation:

How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get?

The point here is that one can make a fatuous argument following from this line of reasoning. I see nothing uncivil about me calling an argument I construct ridiculously fatuous.

This is the quotation:

Some critics who are in the know don't bother "calling them" on their inaccuracies because they are too stupid to warrant comment. See below.

The point here is that there are some critics who refuse to talk about things because they themselves consider the things to be too stupid to warrant comment. How is this incivility?

This is the quotation:

You obviously didn't do a very good job in my estimation, which is why I want you to explain what I consider to be a poorly considered position.

This is an honest assessment of Slrubenstein's contribution to that discussion. Note that I hold Slrubenstein in high regard, I just found that particular contribution to be poorly considered. How is this uncivil? Is disagreement and calling someone's argument "poor" now uncivil?

In short, I don't buy it, I don't think I violated my restrictions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding NPA

This is the quotation:

"But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain?"

This blows me away. I thought I was exhibiting traits of magnanimity in this post. Where is the indication that I am not assuming good faith?

This is the quotation:

"It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a concerted group of paranormal POV-pushers including User:Dreadstar, User:Timid Guy, User:Nealparr, and User:Martinphi are holding this article hostage in order to prevent meaningful information about the subject matter to be presented to the reader. I have therefore added the NPOV tag to encourage broader realization of these problems. In particular, I think that there has been a lot of good information removed from the article since July 2007 that has been excised simply to allow for a sympathetic rather than a neutral point-of-view. This is wholly unacceptable according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The scientific community owns quantum mechanics and the interpretations of it. This needs to be made clear in this article. Currently it is not."

I stand-by this evaluation and others corroborated it. Assuming bad faith would be coming to another article where these editors did not have an editing history as I described and automatically assuming that they were out to have agenda-driven editing practices against NPOV. But is if evidence is presented that people are acting in a certain way, how can it possibly be "assuming" bad faith if they actually are demonstrating their behaviors.

This is the quotation:

Voting (not a measure of consensus)

Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers.

This was just an reiteration of my concerns about the way the listing was being conducted for the RfC. We all know that consensus means that voting is evil. My complaints about POV-pushers and disruptive editors attempting to stack the vote were corroborated by others. I presented my evidence above. How is this assuming bad faith?

In short I do not buy it, I don't think I violated my restrictions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2 tries to give examples, ScienceApologists rejects them

(edit conflict) Calling another editor's argument ridiculously fatuous, or telling one editor that it would be nice if user:X would cut out that crap are two diffs cited by the admin that are uncivil. Those two diffs, regardless of others, evidence that the breach of ruling took place. If this is not clear then please understand it is our view of what the word entails, and make arrangements to not breach it more, even if it is not the word you would use. The rule here is you seek consensus; if you can't get it, seek advice or dispute resolution, but stay civil - which is about manner of speech, not agreeing or differing. FT2  04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I was calling an argument I made ridiculously fatuous. Secondly, I did think that it would be nice if the user would "cut out that crap" with regards to his continued personal attacks. So I still fail to see how either of these things can be considered breaches of civility/NPA. If someone had told me that "cut out that crap" was a problem, I'd have struck-it-through since I was writing that lightheartedly in reference to the continued ridiculous POV-pushing at that page perpetuated, in part, by said user. But now that I'm blocked, I'm not even permitted to do a simple thing as that. Your last two sentences about "the word" totally confuse me and also your vague reference to "our view" is extremely confusing. I'll note that I tried to get input from Rlevse about his view and he ignored me. Why can't I get someone to answer my questions when I ask them? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason you ended up art arbcom is summed up here, evidenced in your words and understanding: "I did think that it would be nice if the user would 'cut out that crap' ... so I still fail to see how can be considered breaches of civility ... If someone had told me that 'cut out that crap' was a problem, I'd have struck-it-through"

And therein lies the problem. I thought it was right so that made it okay to say it that way. If someone had said that to me I wouldn't have minded. But here whether it's right or not, it must be said with civility, and whether or not you would easily strike out a crude expression is not rationale to assume others should have to handle it too. FT2  05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but the versions are identitical?!?!)I'm really confused now. I don't know how it wasn't said with civility. Can you explain. You even say you don't have a problem with it. Does that mean you think it is civil but others don't? Who sets this weird standard of civility? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll further point out that I did not get a chance to defend myself before the block was in-stated. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Though Rlevse provided six diffs in his blocking summary on the noticeboard, some of them were a bit of a stretch, as he took Martinphi's bait and failed to separate commentary on content from commentary on other contributors. These diffs were made even weaker by the fact that you weren't afforded an opportunity to explain them. However, your block isn't going to be lifted, since you clearly called other editors disruptive and accused them of being POV pushers.

Remember, when fringe theorists disrupt Misplaced Pages and push a ludicrous point of view, we can't actually say they're disrupting Misplaced Pages and pushing a ludicrous point of view. Please realize that it's more important to coddle trolls than to spend time doing something productive. -- RG 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with edit conflicts

I think that User:Evula and User:Jossi are trying to edit this page, but I cannot see their edits. Is there something wrong with how mediawiki handles a blocked editor writing on their own talkpage?

Dunno... But you have deleted EVula's decline notice four times already.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Use "show changes" next time; if it shows that you're removing a large chunk of text, copy what you've said, go back to the talk page, and hit edit again, that way you're not removing the denial notice again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am using show changes. These two edits came up with an edit conflict, but I don't see any other changes... what's going on?

Stop editing from diffs (clear out whatever you're looking at by just clicking your "discussion" tab) and there shouldn't be any more edit conflicts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)