User talk:Sharavanabhava: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:09, 16 November 2007 editSharavanabhava (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,327 edits →Blocked again ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:22, 16 November 2007 edit undoMercury~enwiki (talk \| contribs)9,783 edits →Blocked again: reNext edit →
Line 119:		Line 119:

	:::I don't understand how our agreement ended without being breached, Mercury. I can't even defend myself since there are no reasons given for this block. -- ] (]) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		:::I don't understand how our agreement ended without being breached, Mercury. I can't even defend myself since there are no reasons given for this block. -- ] (]) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
			::::An important facet (albeit unspoken) was Adam's willingness to allow me to reverse his block. If he is now unwilling to do so, then I can not mentor any longer. I consider the action of reblocking, a reversion of his blessing if you will. Regards, ] 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:22, 16 November 2007

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

If you leave a comment for me here, you should watch this page for any reply that I might make. If I have left a comment for you on your Talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) but not here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

ANI request

I have asked an uninvolved admin to assess if your recent actions are disruptive editing. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. Tim Vickers 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to take whatever steps you deem proper, and I still welcome arbitration if it comes to that. Whig 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hanley

Hi Whig:

I think I have been fair and NPOV throughout the homeopathy discussions. Perhaps that might help you trust me on this issue.

Hanley in those two papers has nothing to say that has scientific credibility. He doesn't have good references or logical arguments.

Please feel free to delete this.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete this, but I hope I can respond without it being considered disruptive. I am not competent to disregard a paper written by a published physicist which claims a plausible physical mechanism for homeopathic potency. I would welcome any other similarly qualified source which disputes this. Whig 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the process works the "other way" - i.e. unless there is positive support for his views from "reputable sources, scientists" we MUST disregard it under Misplaced Pages policy. I can't imagine finding that kind of support for those papers. Wanderer57 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. We should not take him as a reliable source to say that homeopathic potency is physically plausible, we should however attribute that view to him according to his expertise. So we should say something like, "According to physicist Alex Hanley, Ph.D., a physical explanation of homeopathy is plausible." Whig 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd put two cites there, one for the first and one for the sequel paper. Whig 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. Wanderer57 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the unexpected barnstar! It's very kind of you. cheers Peter morrell 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Whig

off-topic discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Moved from Talk:Homeopathy by Fyslee. It was off-topic.) Whig, are you User:Sm565? I am very serious. Your editing style, argumentation, circular reasoning, and lack of knowledge about basic science and about how to determine the reliability of sources are practically identical, hence my question. -- Fyslee / talk 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) No, I am not. I believe this is a personal attack. Whig 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Fyslee - 1) That is an awfully rude suggestion. Please withdraw it. 2) I read all of Whig's and Sm565's October contributions here. In my opinion, there are huge differences. In the earlier discussion, some of their arguments were 90 degrees or further apart. Wanderer57 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) It was a question, not a suggestion. Wikidudeman 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent)I doubt that Whig and Sm565 are sockpuppets of each other. Both are disruptive, yes, both misunderstand basic scientific concepts, yes. But, after having been exposed to large (very large) quantities of prose by each of them, I think their writing style and syntax are very different. When challenged, Sm tended to get a little hurt, and then restate his point, while Whig just gets angry, and changes the subject for a little while. Sm's use of english was fairly idiosyncratic, while Whig's seems that of a native speaker. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for AGF. It was indeed a question. -- Fyslee / talk 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Wikidudeman - Are you familiar with the term "splitting hairs"? I think it applies here. As I said just a little back, Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over. Wanderer57 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) It was a question, not a personal attack, and thanks for the clear answer. I believe you. I had forgotten about Sm565's language situation. My bad. -- Fyslee / talk 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) There's no need for all this. Whig means well he is pushing a point and why not? homeopathy is a 'deviant science' that has never had any access to peer reviewed anything for 200 years, so please get real. All modern sciences are NOT in that category and do not understand what such 'social exclusion' means, so to insist on peer review is an impossible mountain for homeopathy to climb as of this time. In future this might change but it is a slow climb. Can we just cool it and accept the fact that we are on the brink of GA again and be happy enough with that? thanks Peter morrell 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This kind of discussion is completely inappropriate for an article talk page. It's probably more appropriate for a Whig's user talk page. However, if Fyslee wishes to pursue this accusation, I suggest that he follows the instructions at WP:SSP carefully. Otherwise, he should assume good faith here rather than disrupting this talk page with this. This discussion should be moved to archive and not be continued here. Agreed? -- Levine2112 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I agree that is was inappropriate for the talk page and have moved it here. It was a question, not a "suggestion" or an "accusation". Please AGF. I am perfectly satisfied with Whig's clarification and need no more discussion. Case closed. -- Fyslee / talk 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

off-topic discussions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Moved from Talk:Homeopathy by Fyslee. It was off-topic.)

Whig, are you User:Sm565? I am very serious. Your editing style, argumentation, circular reasoning, and lack of knowledge about basic science and about how to determine the reliability of sources are practically identical, hence my question. -- Fyslee / talk 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. I believe this is a personal attack. Whig 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee - 1) That is an awfully rude suggestion. Please withdraw it. 2) I read all of Whig's and Sm565's October contributions here. In my opinion, there are huge differences. In the earlier discussion, some of their arguments were 90 degrees or further apart. Wanderer57 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a question, not a suggestion. Wikidudeman 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I doubt that Whig and Sm565 are sockpuppets of each other. Both are disruptive, yes, both misunderstand basic scientific concepts, yes. But, after having been exposed to large (very large) quantities of prose by each of them, I think their writing style and syntax are very different. When challenged, Sm tended to get a little hurt, and then restate his point, while Whig just gets angry, and changes the subject for a little while. Sm's use of english was fairly idiosyncratic, while Whig's seems that of a native speaker. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for AGF. It was indeed a question. -- Fyslee / talk 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman - Are you familiar with the term "splitting hairs"? I think it applies here.

As I said just a little back, Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over. Wanderer57 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a question, not a personal attack, and thanks for the clear answer. I believe you. I had forgotten about Sm565's language situation. My bad. -- Fyslee / talk 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for all this. Whig means well he is pushing a point and why not? homeopathy is a 'deviant science' that has never had any access to peer reviewed anything for 200 years, so please get real. All modern sciences are NOT in that category and do not understand what such 'social exclusion' means, so to insist on peer review is an impossible mountain for homeopathy to climb as of this time. In future this might change but it is a slow climb. Can we just cool it and accept the fact that we are on the brink of GA again and be happy enough with that? thanks Peter morrell 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is completely inappropriate for an article talk page. It's probably more appropriate for a Whig's user talk page. However, if Fyslee wishes to pursue this accusation, I suggest that he follows the instructions at WP:SSP carefully. Otherwise, he should assume good faith here rather than disrupting this talk page with this. This discussion should be moved to archive and not be continued here. Agreed? -- Levine2112 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is was inappropriate for the talk page and have moved it here. It was a question, not a "suggestion" or an "accusation". Please AGF. I am perfectly satisfied with Whig's clarification and need no more discussion. Case closed. -- Fyslee / talk 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing due to the RfC and your refusal to accept any compromises or behavioural changes in the administraor's noticeboard discussion. This block is for a period of one month. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Adam Cuerden 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have not violated terms, per Mercury's ban. Mercury has said he would oppose blocking or banning me further from talk pages. Whig 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock provided. You are blocked as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Your unblock request does not refer to that discussion, and no ban by anyone called Mercury is apparent in your block log or in that RfC. — Sandstein 22:55, 28 October 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.

User:Mercury is present in my block log. Whig 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

After discussion with Adam, I'd be willing to unblock if you will agree to mentorship with me. Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, may I archive your talk? Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what mentorship means in Misplaced Pages. You may archive my talk. Whig 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically... we make a deal. I help you, and give you advice here or via email. You take my advice. :) I'll hear and vet complaints regarding your behavior. If there is a behavior concern on your talk page, you stop the behavior until we can talk. I'll be your second set of eyes... the ones with the eyeglasses. Thats where we start. There will be more conditions, but I want to know if you are welling to attempt this before I propose an agreement between the two of us. Regards, Mercury 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem having more eyes. I welcome your help. Whig 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is manifestly preferable to resolve disputes if they arise in this way, rather than going through repeated ANI. Whig 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I don't want him getting in trouble for something I encouraged him to do: Mercury's actions have my approval. If Whig can be given the opportunity and support to develop into a good contributor, I would like that; however, Whig has shown reluctance to even acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, which is why a block was necessary. If we can move beyond this, great. Adam Cuerden 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my proposal:

You agree to send (refer) all complaints about your behavior to my talk page.
I agree to handle those complaints.
When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you and I can talk here or via email.
I agree to check and see whether the behavior is valid or not.
You agree to heed my advice.
I agree to give you the very best advice I can.
I will unblock you.
I will reblock you if we breach our agreement.
You and I will re evaluate our agreement after one months time.
You agree to explicitly comment on edits, and not comment on editors. You also agree not to use profanity on talk pages unless quoting a source or another editor.
You agree that you will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until we can talk via email.
This agreement is in addition to the current editing restrictions.

I have designed this in hope that I might be able to help you understand where folks are coming from, what I believe may be valid complaints, and that I believe are not valid complaints. If you like I will also give you my interpretation of your RFC. If you enjoy this project and enjoy making the articles, then I can help you. I can not help otherwise. I truly believe that you intent is not malicious but each individual is different and their approach is different to the project. You are under no obligation to agree to any of this, as am I under no obligation to unblock you. As always, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee. But I think this arrangement may be best for all concerned. Would you like to give this a spin? Mercury 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does no harm to give this a try. I'm willing to work with you. Whig 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my intruding on your talk page Whig, but I wanted to tell you (and you, Mercury) how delighted I am at the proposal and acceptance. I look forward to seeing your future work! docboat 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

Being given probation does not give you carte blanche to run around do ing everything that got you banned in the first place. Goodbye. Adam Cuerden 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No reason to block has been provided. I would like this block to be reviewed. Whig 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

No reason to block has been provided.

Decline reason:

This is not true. The following reason was provided: "reblock of user unbanned on probation. Being unblocked is not a reason to go doing everything that got you blocked in the first place all over again." — Yamla 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"go doing everything" is not a reason. Whig 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Adam Cuerden blocked me for concurring with David D. in a thread which then quickly resolved consensus in favor of David D.'s position. Whig 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This block is under discussion at WP:AN/I#Reblocked_User:Whig. If you wish to contribute to this discussion Whig you can either e-mail me a response or put it here and I will copy it over. Tim Vickers 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers actually beat me to the punch. Same offer applies. Its preferable that you post it here however, IMHO, and it can be copied from the talk. I won't comment on the block untill I can read over what happened. For clarification, our agreement ended when the reblock occured. Regards, Mercury 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how our agreement ended without being breached, Mercury. I can't even defend myself since there are no reasons given for this block. -- Whig (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An important facet (albeit unspoken) was Adam's willingness to allow me to reverse his block. If he is now unwilling to do so, then I can not mentor any longer. I consider the action of reblocking, a reversion of his blessing if you will. Regards, Mercury 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)