| Revision as of 14:39, 16 July 2014 editHolybeef (talk | contribs)182 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:26, 24 July 2014 edit undoSCZenz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,321 edits →Misrepresentation of my edit to Alan Guth: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| # Never accused anyone of anything w/o providing solid evidence, unlike you in 1-4 above. | # Never accused anyone of anything w/o providing solid evidence, unlike you in 1-4 above. | ||
| Since you're not a scientist but a lawyer (one who insinuates at that), I take your insinuations 1-4 as threats, and am feeling ]. ] (]) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | Since you're not a scientist but a lawyer (one who insinuates at that), I take your insinuations 1-4 as threats, and am feeling ]. ] (]) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Misrepresentation of my edit to ] == | |||
| I object strongly to your misrepresentation of my edit on ] in your comment reverting it . I also object to the revert itself, insofar as you have mischaracterized the situation as "settled in talk," when it is clearly not. | |||
| First, it's clear from my comment that this was not "vandalism" because it reflected my honest opinion. I therefore request that you retract this part of the comment. | |||
| Second, it's clear from ] that you have been pushing your perspective in the face of a number of objections, and that no consensus was reached. You simply argued until everyone gave up, which is not consensus. | |||
| Third, it's clear to me that you place high importance on a particular slanted interpretation of a few sources even in the face of contrary links that make it clear that Guth continues to promote inflationary theory. (For example, in a talk that I attended in July, for which the slides are available: .) You place particular importance on the word "recant," which has no particular meaning or purpose in modern science, so at the very least a rewording and broader discussion is necessary. | |||
| I would like to ask if you acknowledge that there is no consensus behind your revision and that multiple people have objected, and ask if you are willing to proceed with collegial editing on that basis. If not, as an alternative to a one-on-one edit war (hardly appropriate, and not a good use of my time), I will bring your persistent imposition of your point of view to the attention of a few noticeboards and we'll see what a wider range of editors say. | |||
| Best wishes, | |||
| ] (]) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:26, 24 July 2014
Welcome!
Hello, Holybeef, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Laura Mersini-Houghton
You appear to be running into several problems here:
- It is very clear that you appear to have a strong and direct personal interest in discounting the subject's research. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:DUCK, WP:POINT, and WP:SOAP.
- Avoid adding red links to articles, unless you have a serious intention of creating new articles on such notable topics. WP:MOS is our manual of style.
- You are running the risk of entering into an edit war. Please read WP:3RR before editing any more.
- Since the general idea of fixing the article was decided by consensus at WP:AfD, there is no need to discuss every single edit on the talk page. Other editors may rely on WP:BOLD.
- Please avoid accusing others of bias; refer to WP:AGF.
Thank you for your interest and work on the project. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure how that could be "very clear", given that we're both anonymous.
- Never added any red links, but feel free to prove the opposite.
- Was never engaged in an edit war, but feel free to prove the opposite.
- No consensus has been reached whatsoever, let alone on a complete overhaul. WP:BOLD is for clear-cut cases, not disputes.
- Never accused anyone of anything w/o providing solid evidence, unlike you in 1-4 above.
Since you're not a scientist but a lawyer (one who insinuates at that), I take your insinuations 1-4 as threats, and am feeling Chilling Effect. Holybeef (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of my edit to Alan Guth
I object strongly to your misrepresentation of my edit on Alan Guth in your comment reverting it . I also object to the revert itself, insofar as you have mischaracterized the situation as "settled in talk," when it is clearly not.
First, it's clear from my comment that this was not "vandalism" because it reflected my honest opinion. I therefore request that you retract this part of the comment.
Second, it's clear from ] that you have been pushing your perspective in the face of a number of objections, and that no consensus was reached. You simply argued until everyone gave up, which is not consensus.
Third, it's clear to me that you place high importance on a particular slanted interpretation of a few sources even in the face of contrary links that make it clear that Guth continues to promote inflationary theory. (For example, in a talk that I attended in July, for which the slides are available: .) You place particular importance on the word "recant," which has no particular meaning or purpose in modern science, so at the very least a rewording and broader discussion is necessary.
I would like to ask if you acknowledge that there is no consensus behind your revision and that multiple people have objected, and ask if you are willing to proceed with collegial editing on that basis. If not, as an alternative to a one-on-one edit war (hardly appropriate, and not a good use of my time), I will bring your persistent imposition of your point of view to the attention of a few noticeboards and we'll see what a wider range of editors say.
Best wishes, SCZenz (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)