| Revision as of 21:05, 1 February 2009 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits →Talk:Cold fusion: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 2 February 2009 edit undoAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Talk:Cold fusion: well, you might try asking me!Next edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| Guy, I think that you shouldn't reply to any message on Talk:Cold fusion about Jed's ban. You are just giving an excuse to Abd to keep posting long posts :) --] (]) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | Guy, I think that you shouldn't reply to any message on Talk:Cold fusion about Jed's ban. You are just giving an excuse to Abd to keep posting long posts :) --] (]) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * Abd's behaviour baffles me. I have never thought of Abd as anything other than a decent, productive editor - one of the many who often do good by fixing up the junk that the less good leave behind, on occasion - but this apparent denial of Pcarbonn's POV-pushing and Rothwell's status as a disruptive POV-pushing ] is absolutely baffling to me. I have a strong impression that there is some back-story that I am missing. It is hard to understand what room there is for doubt here - everything that applies to Pcarbonn in respect of ], ], ] and so on applies doubly to Rothwell, in fact if anything it is Pcarbonn who is acting for Rothwell not the other way around. The less of these kooks' input we have the more chance there is that the article will eventually claw its way back out of the gutter through normal editorial process, which is all I want. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | * Abd's behaviour baffles me. I have never thought of Abd as anything other than a decent, productive editor - one of the many who often do good by fixing up the junk that the less good leave behind, on occasion - but this apparent denial of Pcarbonn's POV-pushing and Rothwell's status as a disruptive POV-pushing ] is absolutely baffling to me. I have a strong impression that there is some back-story that I am missing. It is hard to understand what room there is for doubt here - everything that applies to Pcarbonn in respect of ], ], ] and so on applies doubly to Rothwell, in fact if anything it is Pcarbonn who is acting for Rothwell not the other way around. The less of these kooks' input we have the more chance there is that the article will eventually claw its way back out of the gutter through normal editorial process, which is all I want. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, Guy, you might try paying attention to what I've written here on your Talk page! "POV-pushing" of certain kinds isn't contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm not convinced that PCarbonn was actually a POV-pusher; his New Energy Times article seems to have been read with a rather jaundiced eye. But he certainly has a different POV from you! And from ScienceApologist. Researching the history of the article, I was appalled. Look, you had at least some kind of reasonable excuse with Rothwell, his Talk page edits, to someone who wasn't paying attention to the ''purpose'' of linkspam policy and to what Rothwell was actually doing, looked like linkspam, even though, if you read the guidelines, they hardly resemble linkspam at all. They aren't widespread, and they aren't links, just his title. But with New Energy Times, what was your excuse? Could it be that you consider New Energy Times a "fringe" "polemic" site? And how do you judge that? I've now had occasion to speak with Krivit. He's a *journalist* who has come to specialize in the field. He follows journalistic ethics and standards. Yet, the on-line magazine has editorials that express opinions, but that's clearly different from the extensive ''reporting'' that's done there. What was the reason for blacklisting NET? Could it be that you believed it wasn't a usable source? But this is an ''editorial'' decision, not an administrative one. You got confused in your roles. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last. | |||
| ::Yes, I find this sad, because, in fact, I've seen your good work as well, I've seen you as helpful. On the other hand, Rothwell is an abrasive personality, but he's not a "kook." I know the field of cold fusion, I avidly read everything I could about it back in 1989-1990. I had largely chalked it all up to an unfortunate mistake, experimental error. It is still ''possible'' that this is the case, but it's increasingly unlikely if you read the latest research, which I hadn't until I accidentally noticed a reference to the blacklist on Jehochman Talk. It's not like ] and other major goofs. Quite simply, it turned out to be quite difficult to reproduce, but "quite difficult" doesn't mean that Fleischmann was wrong, it meant that finding verification was going to take a lot more time than anyone expected, and the massive -- and premature -- rejection that you know and I know took place made it all the more difficult. Rothwell knows the field possibly as well as anyone in the field, not as a scientist himself, but as a writer and editor. What he writes about the state of research on cold fusion checks out. He's arrogant and irritating, all the more so because he's usually right when he writes about what he knows about. Not necessarily what he doesn't know about, such as Misplaced Pages process. As a COI editor, he is ''expected'' to have a POV and to "push it," but only in Talk, not in articles. I think you got a tad confused about that. Pcarbonn edited articles. Jed stopped doing that quite a while ago. As to copyright violation, you asserted your own opinion on this, over and over, in the face of expert opinion. Too much belief in yourself, Guy, not enough trust in the ''community.'' | |||
| ::This ready dismissal of "POV pushers" is a serious problem; the fact is that few are able to truly avoid POV pushing while actually working to improve the project. I see your edits to Cold fusion as POV pushing; just a different POV. To me, no single individual determines NPOV; NPOV is actually best measured by consensus; when good-faith, reasonable editors with all POVs agree on text, it is almost certainly NPOV. ''We need editors or advisors (i.e., experts in the field like Rothwell or, on the other side, Shanahan, for example) with strong POVs in order to detect bias.'' And we prevent these POVs from taking over by insisting on consensus process, with all the policies governing editorial behavior; and a crucial part of this is that administrators do not determine content using their tools, with few exceptions. Rather, they police editors to make sure that behavioral guidelines are followed. And, in this, it's crucial that administrators not use their tools when involved, and your edits show, clearly, that you were involved. Please read what response you got to the RfAr, and not just the casual, what's the big deal just ban them response that you got at first. ArbComm is quite different from an administrative noticeboard; it's not the first comments that count, but the sober, cautiously deliberated result, and ArbComm, quite properly, declined to start up that process because it is very time-consuming. Dispute resolution should start right here. If I have a dispute with you, we should attempt to work it out. If we can't agree, then we get help, one step at a time. Let's do it, Guy. If you don't agree with what I've been saying, don't just blow it off. Suggest a mediator, I'm willing to try informally with anyone. If you suggest someone who will just knee-jerk agree with you, well, you'll be wasting your time, my time, and the mediator's time. Once upon a time, I'd have suggested Carcharoth, but as an arbitrator, that could be tricky. Any ideas? --] (]) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Just to say... == | == Just to say... == | ||
Revision as of 05:07, 2 February 2009
|
This user is a member of the Misplaced Pages Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately.
You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards. |
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets. You can find me on facebook: my profile. Please include your WP username if sending a friend request.
Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Misplaced Pages as well.
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
— Matthew 18:15
Please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
- Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing - read it now.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
Just saying...
Fuck you're a cranky bastard. I've said so several times in the last few days. Yet somehow I've always found you strangely appealing.
Much love (but in a safe, manly way)
brenneman 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Damn right. I can be very cranky indeed, especially when I am under time pressures and tight deadlines (which I am right now). Thanks for reminding me to count to ten before clicking Save :-) Guy (Help!) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Cold fusion
Hey, I was just about to semiprotect Talk:Cold fusion when you beat me to it. Great minds etc. Anyhow, I was wondering if you'd mind if I backed the protection down to 1-2 weeks, rather than 6 months. Since it's a talk page, it might make sense to go in small increments. I'll take responsibility for re-semiprotecting the page if the usual suspects start disrupting it again after the semiprotection expires. Anyhow, just wanted to check with you. MastCell 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not especially, but be aware that Jed will be right back as soon as it wears off, from past experience. I'm more than happy to share the load here. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have no illusions about the degree of persistence here. On the other hand, it'd be nice to balance that with allowing (non-abusive) IPs to edit the talk page. Maybe I'm leaning too far in that direction. Anyhow, I did go ahead and shorten it - I'll keep an eye out for recurrences, and please let me know if I can be of assistance down the line. MastCell 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Guy, I think that you shouldn't reply to any message on Talk:Cold fusion about Jed's ban. You are just giving an excuse to Abd to keep posting long posts :) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Abd's behaviour baffles me. I have never thought of Abd as anything other than a decent, productive editor - one of the many who often do good by fixing up the junk that the less good leave behind, on occasion - but this apparent denial of Pcarbonn's POV-pushing and Rothwell's status as a disruptive POV-pushing WP:SPA is absolutely baffling to me. I have a strong impression that there is some back-story that I am missing. It is hard to understand what room there is for doubt here - everything that applies to Pcarbonn in respect of WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE, WP:UNDUE and so on applies doubly to Rothwell, in fact if anything it is Pcarbonn who is acting for Rothwell not the other way around. The less of these kooks' input we have the more chance there is that the article will eventually claw its way back out of the gutter through normal editorial process, which is all I want. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Guy, you might try paying attention to what I've written here on your Talk page! "POV-pushing" of certain kinds isn't contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm not convinced that PCarbonn was actually a POV-pusher; his New Energy Times article seems to have been read with a rather jaundiced eye. But he certainly has a different POV from you! And from ScienceApologist. Researching the history of the article, I was appalled. Look, you had at least some kind of reasonable excuse with Rothwell, his Talk page edits, to someone who wasn't paying attention to the purpose of linkspam policy and to what Rothwell was actually doing, looked like linkspam, even though, if you read the guidelines, they hardly resemble linkspam at all. They aren't widespread, and they aren't links, just his title. But with New Energy Times, what was your excuse? Could it be that you consider New Energy Times a "fringe" "polemic" site? And how do you judge that? I've now had occasion to speak with Krivit. He's a *journalist* who has come to specialize in the field. He follows journalistic ethics and standards. Yet, the on-line magazine has editorials that express opinions, but that's clearly different from the extensive reporting that's done there. What was the reason for blacklisting NET? Could it be that you believed it wasn't a usable source? But this is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. You got confused in your roles. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.
- Yes, I find this sad, because, in fact, I've seen your good work as well, I've seen you as helpful. On the other hand, Rothwell is an abrasive personality, but he's not a "kook." I know the field of cold fusion, I avidly read everything I could about it back in 1989-1990. I had largely chalked it all up to an unfortunate mistake, experimental error. It is still possible that this is the case, but it's increasingly unlikely if you read the latest research, which I hadn't until I accidentally noticed a reference to the blacklist on Jehochman Talk. It's not like polywater and other major goofs. Quite simply, it turned out to be quite difficult to reproduce, but "quite difficult" doesn't mean that Fleischmann was wrong, it meant that finding verification was going to take a lot more time than anyone expected, and the massive -- and premature -- rejection that you know and I know took place made it all the more difficult. Rothwell knows the field possibly as well as anyone in the field, not as a scientist himself, but as a writer and editor. What he writes about the state of research on cold fusion checks out. He's arrogant and irritating, all the more so because he's usually right when he writes about what he knows about. Not necessarily what he doesn't know about, such as Misplaced Pages process. As a COI editor, he is expected to have a POV and to "push it," but only in Talk, not in articles. I think you got a tad confused about that. Pcarbonn edited articles. Jed stopped doing that quite a while ago. As to copyright violation, you asserted your own opinion on this, over and over, in the face of expert opinion. Too much belief in yourself, Guy, not enough trust in the community.
- This ready dismissal of "POV pushers" is a serious problem; the fact is that few are able to truly avoid POV pushing while actually working to improve the project. I see your edits to Cold fusion as POV pushing; just a different POV. To me, no single individual determines NPOV; NPOV is actually best measured by consensus; when good-faith, reasonable editors with all POVs agree on text, it is almost certainly NPOV. We need editors or advisors (i.e., experts in the field like Rothwell or, on the other side, Shanahan, for example) with strong POVs in order to detect bias. And we prevent these POVs from taking over by insisting on consensus process, with all the policies governing editorial behavior; and a crucial part of this is that administrators do not determine content using their tools, with few exceptions. Rather, they police editors to make sure that behavioral guidelines are followed. And, in this, it's crucial that administrators not use their tools when involved, and your edits show, clearly, that you were involved. Please read what response you got to the RfAr, and not just the casual, what's the big deal just ban them response that you got at first. ArbComm is quite different from an administrative noticeboard; it's not the first comments that count, but the sober, cautiously deliberated result, and ArbComm, quite properly, declined to start up that process because it is very time-consuming. Dispute resolution should start right here. If I have a dispute with you, we should attempt to work it out. If we can't agree, then we get help, one step at a time. Let's do it, Guy. If you don't agree with what I've been saying, don't just blow it off. Suggest a mediator, I'm willing to try informally with anyone. If you suggest someone who will just knee-jerk agree with you, well, you'll be wasting your time, my time, and the mediator's time. Once upon a time, I'd have suggested Carcharoth, but as an arbitrator, that could be tricky. Any ideas? --Abd (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to say...
AWstats rocks! And the log rollup perl script is marvellous. Now all my esx server logs can be combined! Guy (Help!) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? Why? Why?
Why did you delete 'PINGAS'? Was a redirect that offensive for you to delete it? It was just a redirect to Doctor Eggman in other media#Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, where the 'PINGAS' phrase comes from. Is that 'pure vandalism'? Ambil (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just the janitor here. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
EXPLANATION DEMANDED
Can you please provide me with a satisfactory explanation as to why you deleted my entry 'Squrgers'. There is no copyright infringement as the material was written by ME, yes it was from the website you mentioned but this is MY website. Therefore how can i be breaching copyright when the material BELONGS to ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squrger (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- (just passing by) Any text inserted into Misplaced Pages is released by its author under "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.". That website has no copyright notice anywhere saying it's licensed under a GFDL-compatible license, and JzG can't read your mind and know that you are the owner of that website.
- You have to put a note on your website saying something like "I release the text on this website under GFDL so it can be used by wikipedia". Or, if you don't want to do that, then maybe it would be easir to put a note on your website saying "User "Squrger" on wikipedia has permission to use any text from this website in wikipedia articles under GFDL."
- Also, notice that, even after getting over the copyright problems, you still have to show how the "Squrger" guideline complies with the notability guideline. You need to provide reliable independient third-party sources (usually newspaper reports, like the NewCastle Chronicle report on your website). So be prepared to dig out any newspapers item in which Squrger appears and present them on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Demanding stuff always works well. Don't forget to threaten to sue if the explanation is not to your liking. And write to your Congressman letting him know how evil it is that Misplaced Pages deletes stuff without proof of copyright release - I'm sure that we can get a law passed making it mandatory to leave all material on Misplaced Pages indefinitely if someone says it is theirs, even though we've had people tell us some outrageous fibs about that in the past.
- Mind you, the fact that the deleted content was also abject nonsense, utterly failed every policy we have, and was almost certainly advertising as well, does rather weaken your case. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aw, come on, Guy. Squrgers contain no scrotums. Surely that counts for something? Bishonen | talk 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
Cthulhu Nation deletion
Yes, it had been recreated. The original vote to delete was based (iirc) on a lack of reliable sources and unclear notability. The new version of the article (i.e., the one that was just deleted) was necessarily similar to the originally-deleted version - but had made a genuine effort to address the RS/notability concerns. As such, does it really fall under CSD:G4? - "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." That is, was it really "substantially identical"? - Jaeger5432 | Talk 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Try a sourced userspace rewrite and DRV, that is the best method. Otherwise crap which was delete dis always likely to be deleted again when it's re-created, because we have had too many bad experiences with obsessive fans gaming the system by writing New! IMPROVED!! articles which are not quite the same. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)