Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 28 February 2008

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Misplaced Pages, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From

During this period between the world wars, sightings were reported and searches launched for, among others, the snoligostus, the ogopogo, the Australian bunyip, the whirling wimpus, the rubberado, the rackabore, and the cross-feathered snee. These sound like some interesting creatures that deserve articles on WP! The only one I know of is the ogopogo, although I have never seen it, even though I have been to Lake Okanagan many times. ...--Filll (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and H

You've made the same exact comments over and over again and effectively had the discussion diverted and moved from the NPOV page. I will pursue admin assistance if you persists. Anthon01 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? How dare you make such threats! I tried to explain NPOV to you. You rejected my explanations over and over and over. So I acquiesced and surrendered and invited you to go ahead and rewrite the policy (which is what that talk page is for), or make whatever changes to the article that suited your fancy (which I believe is what you were after). I told you repeatedly, over and over and over that you had won and I did not want to fight. And for surrendering and telling you that you have won, you have decided that I have violated the rules of Misplaced Pages? In what way? How dare you make such insinuations and such threats! What on earth?--Filll (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The repetition ends up diverting the conversation and is disruptive. If you go back to the NPOV and try to divert the discussion again I will seek admin assistance. Now I've said it twice. I will not say it again. I will also address you conflict of interest issue later. I will also address an apparent conflict of interest issue later. Anthon01 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do repeat things in different ways when people are not able or are unwilling to absorb the information, for a variety of reasons. And now you are in a bad faith way accusing me of violating WP:COI? How? After accusing me repeatedly of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? I think I have had enough.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edit. That NPOV page displays all the text. I hid parts that were off-topic. Anthon01 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, please WP:AGF. You did it incorrectly.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What text did I lose. Please provide a diff or quote. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as it is now and it is fine. Your last "hide" did not work properly and you lost all the text you supposedly were hiding. When you make a drastic change, test all your "hide" buttons to make sure they are operating. And please WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not leave it as is. I intend to hide the off topic parts. I've asked for help in identifying where the problem is. You have refused, so I will do it myself. Anthon01 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I suggested methods you could try to fix the problem. Please proceed with those. I am not an expert in this kind of formatting. If you need help, please seek out technical assistance from a more experienced editor.--Filll (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thakns for your help. Anthon01 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Any time. Glad to be of service.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Levine's signiture is the problem. I will be looking for a way around it. Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV. I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. Anthon01 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, past experience has demonstrated that this is a false statement. I ask you to please WP:AGF and not make such uncivil comments again or I will ask an admin to block you for violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am outraged that you would behave in such a manner.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where I have been uncivil? Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thakns for your help. is sarcastic and uncivil

• There are numerous examples of refusing to WP:AGF above and in the reversions and edit summaries

• Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV is sarcastic and ludicrous since you went to a page that is intended for rewriting NPOV and now claim you do not want to, after arguing about it for months on end and thousands of edits. Frankly, this is not believable, with all due respect and I view your wording as a violation of WP:CIVIL.

• I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. I find this highly uncivil since you invited me to participate and now are complaining that I am involved. You have wasted my time and engaged in tendentious argumentation and violation of WP:TE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by this comportment, which I take umbrage at and I take as a severe personal affront.

• For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. I find this a highly uncivil comment and a violation of WP:AGF. When you ask the same question again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again over and over and over and over and over and over and argue and argue and argue and argue about the answer you get if it is not the one you want, and then complain that someone has answered you repeatedly in the same way, this is a bit disingenuous and is a severe violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:TE and is highly disruptive. I am highly offended by this.

• Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. I find this a highly snide, sarcastic, derogatory, insulting, vulgar, snippy, disrespectful, brusque and offensive. This tone is unwelcome in my presence and I find your comportment and egregious flippancy to be beyond the pale. Please reign yourself in and do NOT engage in such further obnoxious combative discourse.--Filll (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is highly unacceptable. You are NOT allowed to edit someone else's comments and intersperse your comments in between. This is a gross violation of decency and respect. It is grounds for immediate administrative sanction. I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront. Absolutely sickening...--Filll (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, Filll has a point. The way you've responded makes it hard to distinguish who's saying what. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apolgies, I will rewrite it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up your page. Actually I have seen other editors do this to make it easy to respond to a list or long paragraphs. And Talk page policy says Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) ... I do agree with RA that it makes it hard to read. I don't agree that it is This is a gross violation of decency and respect. It is grounds for immediate admiminstrative sanction. I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront ... I don't see any reason to apologize copiously . I would not suggest admin action over this as it would be IMO, a waste of their time. But if you decide to do that, I will be looking forward to their POV on what you call an egregious affront. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Thank was a sincere thanks, since you did mention using the sandbox.

Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV
It certainly wasn't my intention. You've asked repeatedly to change NPOV. You said I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit. I went to page where NPOV is often discussed. If you look carefully through the sections, you will see many examples of discussions on the correct interpretation of NPOV. Most of those are not intended to change NPOV but to clarify disagreements on interpretations.

I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors.
I said it on that page as a general comment. I said I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group. in response to MastCell's post. Please note he didn't take it personally. I said that there because I had already gotten your interpretation and was looking for more input. I specifically started that section with ... What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise. My mistake for not being clear. I wanted you to comment on what other editors might comment and not to repeat what you had already siad to me on the homeopathy talk page. I meant it to be a spirited discussion where greater clarity could be achieved on NPOV in regards to minority articles.

For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case.
I'm sorry, but I find you repeating it 10 times beyond belief. Please consider how you might react if I kept repeating the same thing to you over and over again. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Twice maybe. I got you the very first time.
Sorry. I mean that sincerely. And I didn't mean it as an insult or as disrespect. I meant by that comment that, you can say something to me once maybe twice, but there is no need to repeat past that. If I don't get it the first time, I'll get it the second time. If it appears I didn't hear, it likely means I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Anthon01

Sorry for messing up your page. Actually I have seen other editors do this to make it easy to respond to a list or long paragraphs. And Talk page policy says "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) ..." I do agree with RA that it makes it hard to read.

So why do it? Just to be difficult?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is "This is a gross violation of decency and respect."

It is up to me to decide what is uncivil to me and is not uncivil to me, not you. And since WP:CIVIL is paramount, this should be obvious to all and sundry.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is grounds for immediate admiminstrative sanction.

I have seen it happen.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront ..." I don't see any reason to apologize "copiously ."

That is not up to you to decide. Since you feel and your fellows of a similar POV can demand copious apologies, so can I. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember, WP:CIVIL is paramount. And you have contributed to this situation. So do not complain. Just apologize. Perhaps a thread at AN/I would be appropriate?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest admin action over this as it would be IMO, a waste of their time.

That is not for you to decide. Remember, WP:CIVIL is paramount. --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But if you decide to do that, I will be looking forward to their POV on what you call an "egregious affront." Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks for your help." Thank was a sincere thanks, since you did mention using the sandbox.

I take it as surly and sarcastic and you do not get to judge how your messages are received since WP:CIVIL is paramount.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV
It certainly wasn't my intention. You've asked repeatedly to change NPOV.

Absolutely not. That is a gross falsehood and misprepresentation and I demand that you apologize immediately and copiously and publicly. I never wanted to change NPOV except possibly to make it clearer. That is vile and offensive to suggest.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit." I went to page where NPOV is often discussed. If you look carefully through the sections, you will see many examples of discussions on the correct interpretation of NPOV. Most of those are not intended to change NPOV but to clarify disagreements on interpretations.

You have been given several dozen interpretations on that page and other pages which all basically agree with each other. Yet you persist. Why? Strikes me as tendentious disruptive editing, forum shopping, and uncivil behavior --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors."
I said it on that page as a general comment. I said "I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group." in response to MastCell's post. Please note he didn't take it personally.

How do you know he did not take it personally? That is an uncivil comment and assumption.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I said that there because I had already gotten your interpretation and was looking for more input. I specifically started that section with " ... What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise."

You were given responses which you disagreed with, and then continued to pose the same query over and over, in an example of continual tendentious editing.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake for not being clear. I wanted you to comment on what other editors might comment and not to repeat what you had already siad to me on the homeopathy talk page. I meant it to be a spirited discussion where greater clarity could be achieved on NPOV in regards to minority articles.

Spirited discussions are forbidden and uncivil since WP:CIVIL is paramount. --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case."
I'm sorry, but I find you repeating it 10 times beyond belief. Please consider how you might react if I kept repeating the same thing to you over and over again. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually you have repeated the same thing to me and others over and over and over again for 6 months or more. So how do you think we feel? Get the picture?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Twice maybe. I got you the very first time."
Sorry. I mean that sincerely. And I didn't mean it as an insult or as disrespect. I meant by that comment that, you can say something to me once maybe twice, but there is no need to repeat past that. If I don't get it the first time, I'll get it the second time. If it appears I didn't hear, it likely means I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what is an insult or disrespect. If you want to play this game, we can all play. Since WP:CIVIL is paramount, I can charge anything you say with being uncivil and a lack of WP:AGF. And since you want to do this, we will all do it. And it will be fun. See how much fun?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I'm not your problem. Note that one editor says your behavior can be seen as being stonewalling and a little melodramatic. Anthon01 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am disengaging here. I will continue on the AN/I in full view of other editors. Anthon01 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as I said repeatedly, you are not at fault. So why do you not just edit accordingly as I have invited you to do dozens of times now? And if NPOV does not suit you, please feel free to make it clearer and more in line with what you think is suitable.--Filll (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE & WP:DE, not WP:COI

I sympathize with your dispute with these disruptive editors. I've been trying to deal with these very same editors, and others like them for a good year and a half. I'm still having regular difficulties with them and have found that few will even offer suggestions on how to deal with them, much less get involved themselves.

While they have conflicts of interest, it is not obvious enough to take any action against them through WP:COIN. The real problem is that they WP:DISRUPT Misplaced Pages and edit tendentiously. They are trolls. They have recently learned how to very effectively whine about how others treat them and about how others act. They've been especially successful in getting admins and others to respond to their complaints of incivility. Unfortunately, there is little recourse to take against them, and the options are ineffective. ANI, Arbcom, and RFC/U are the only real venues available. It's extremely frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User: WAS 4.250 at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal suggested that WP:COI might be easier to pin on them. Certainly it should be easier on User: DanaUllman who I gather is Dana Ullman. Several others have identified themselves as practicing homeopaths, like User: Anthon01. Others are more obscure, or just might be fans of homeopathy rather than real practitioners. User: Peter morrell is a real homeopath as well, but Peter is not a problem since Peter is willing to work within WP rules and principles. Peter obviously is not a SPA either since he has a wide range of extensive contributions here. I do not mind WP:COI as long as they are not disruptive. I do not mind WP:CIVIL either really as long as the editor is productive and not difficult to work with. --Filll (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)