| Revision as of 02:00, 16 June 2008 editRedheylin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,508 edits →ScienceApologist← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:10, 16 June 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,575 edits rNext edit → | ||
| Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
| :That's exactly what I was trying to avoid... a "diff war". I didn't want to add to it, but since I was requested to with five, I added what I feel is a succinct summary of SA's reciprocal harassment. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | :That's exactly what I was trying to avoid... a "diff war". I didn't want to add to it, but since I was requested to with five, I added what I feel is a succinct summary of SA's reciprocal harassment. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::The diffs you provided show me pointing out in a ] where Martinphi was disrupting articles. If that is really "harassment", then arbcom is also guilty of it. ] (]) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orgone== | |||
| Your oversight of this page would be appreciated, as would your understanding of the situation and at what stage to do what. If you find yourself able... ] (]) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:10, 16 June 2008
|
Vassyana is on a "semi-wikibreak" and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Word of the day
Treeware. noun. Template:IPAEng.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.
"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."
Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Misplaced Pages recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Help me out.
- Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
Help required
Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
You accused me of violating WP:NOR here. That is a serious accusation. Could you tell me if you read my sourcing, the Cramer and Olson paper, before you made your accusation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has been fairly clearly explained, but I will provide some additional feedback. However, I would first like to note that regardless of the NOR violation, it was pushing a controversial edit in a long standing dispute for which you and another person were recently blocked. That alone would be sufficient to justify further sanctions for disruption. That being said, this edit did commit original research. You present it as though government documents nigh exclusively discuss military service and that some few other sources provide other uses. The thrust of the paper itself is to argue that the historical roots of a right to bear arms is based in a broad usage of the right, including far more than military service, strongly ingrained in the common law and legal foundations of the United States. Avoiding arguments over the wording being cited, it's clearly an acute misuse of the source (and probably original research) to use it in such a fashion as to make it appear to support an opposite conclusion. To make a comparison, it would not be acceptable to selectively (and/or inaccurately) cite a paper that makes a forceful argument for special relativity to argue against (or using a phrasing implying invalidity of) special relativity. It is no more acceptable on the topic of bearing arms. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You neglected to actually answer my question. Also, I guess, that determining "the thrust" of the Cramer and Olson paper depends on the reading, but in good faith when I read that paper I reach a different conclusion that you did. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to avoid being drawn into arguments of minutiae. Regardless, let's address your edit:
The paper does not purport to "confirm" any such claim. On the contrary, the paper puts forward the possibility of selection bias for such claims from previous sources. It does say that it is "unsurprising" that government documents discuss governmental functions and uses. However, the paper also makes it clear that "military service" is not the whole of this discussion. The paper does not say that the scope was simply expanded to non-governmental documents. It states the search was more comprehensive and casting it as does your edit is extremely dishonest. Commentaries on the Laws of England can hardly be cast as distinct from government usage, for example, as it was 'and is considered the authoritative source on the state of Anglo-American common law in the late 18th century. Indeed, it is even cited by the United States Supreme Court for such purposes. Additionally, the paper makes it further clear that the broad interpretation was the standard of common law at the time. One can hardly state that common law considerations are independent from governmental concerns.
These are just a few points that demonstrate the inappropriate use of the source. The edit on a very fundamental level commits original research, cherrypicking and grossly distorting the source to advance a position. If you earnestly cannot distinguish sufficiently between the correct and incorrect use of sources in an area that you hold a strong interest in (which is very common and quite human), then I would strongly recommend editing unrelated topics to take advantage of your strengths unhindered by bias. Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking to discuss the meaning of the Cramer paper, and I strongly disagree with your opinion and your accusation of bad faith, but I won't engage that discussion here on your talk page. I am questioning the appearance that you are taking sides in a content dispute. It appears that your criticism of my edit, and your tacit approval of this revert by Yaf has a poor appearance. Taking sides may not be your intent, and that is why I am asking. In any case your conduct has the appearance that you have taken Yaf's side in the content dispute, as Yaf has asserted here. You may want to clear up this appearance of impropriety, as I suspect that you did not actually intend it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This goes beyond a reasonable content disagreement. It's not "taking sides" any more than blocking someone for a personal attack, soapboxing or other issues is "taking sides". You blatantly and obviously misused a source, presenting conclusions in contradiction to the source, to promote your opinion. This isn't a debate about a murky meaning or content selection or anything of the like. If you seriously and honestly do not understand what was wrong with your edit, you really need to walk away from the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Day
User:QuackGuru
Upon consideration, it would be best to let this issue drop. While some information may be available or even public, it doesn't mean that it should be raised here on Misplaced Pages. Unless it is pertinent to the purposes of Misplaced Pages, it should not be raised here. While it is certainly not "outing" (and shouldn't be called such), raising it against the person's wishes with no obvious purpose for the encyclopedia could easily be construed as harassment and/or simply being disruptive to prove a point. I would encourage people to avoid hyperbolic and inaccurate language such a "outing" to describe raising the public information. However, I would also strongly encourage people to not raise the information, as I cannot fathom the purpose of raising it on Misplaced Pages. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of , as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning 's site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on , which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Yes, "outing" may not be the best term, but harassment and violations of WP:TALK and WP:POINT are probably more accurate. Unnecessary or irrelevant use of outside information regarding Wikipedians, especially when used to attack them, isn't constructive or conducive to a collaborative environment. Regardless of our differing POV, we all need to avoid personal attacks. I wish that policy included something about this. The closest I have found is the condemnation of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Using people's POV against them is also unfair, since that makes it seem illegitimate to have a POV. We should stick to commenting on the edits, sources, etc., instead of impugning each other's motives. -- Fyslee / talk 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of , as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning 's site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on , which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim
Hello,
Regarding working on this page, I am wondering about the appropriateness of soliciting outside help in sourcing the information found in the current version of the article. I'm assuming it would not be OK to have uninvolved partied editing the Trim page itself, but would it be appropriate for others to post source information and discuss things on the Trim talk page? I myself am only marginally familiar with the subject of Kender, and can conclude that the other involved parties are either in the same boat, or don't have the time to put in to getting the work done. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine that soliciting assistance for finding good references should ever be considered inappropriate. I would ask that you try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments from outside parties to a minimum, as that can easily degenerate into the general argument about the area (part 233 of a continuing series of disagreements *chuckle*). However, there should be no problem at all with people providing sources, offering suggestions about good places to find references, etc. Vassyana (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Coolness. :) I'll ask around at EN World this week; people there seem to know more about what they're doing than anywhere else when it comes to RPG stuff. But yes, I know exactly what you mean - I know good and well that any amount of mediation will never stop all arguments, but we can always hope to come to some kind of understanding... and that won't happen if a dozen folks butt in with their own arguments. I will encourage people to post somewhere other than the Trim talk page. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- As it is, it doesn't take much to get just the principles arguing. :) We work together so well! BOZ (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
Possible edit warring by logged-out editor
Vassyana, this may be a little bit of a long shot, but the pattern of behavior is just too familiar. Since you are familiar with the editor (I hesitate to actually name him/her without proof, but I think who it is may be obvious, please let me know if you want me to ID the suspected editor here or privately via email) that may be trying to dodge accountability for this anonymous/IP 72.197.197.215 revert, do you think you could look into it if you have the opportunity? I'm not sure yet if the information deleted in this edit appears elsewhere in the article (taking a quick look does not reveal the Cooke, or any other, source for that information), but I feel that controversial edits should be hashed out in the talk page, like the one that immediately preceded this revert. This type of behavior is really quite disruptive, since, if that information really does appear elsewhere in the article, this citation should have been added there to improve the reliability of the article per WP:RS. All we have now is a vague POV-based revert, the loss of an academic source, and no discussion on the talk page to learn if this citation was appropriately removed. Please accept my apologies if Misplaced Pages does not log the IP address of logged-in users and there's no way to track this situation. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unlikely it is him. This anon IP uses Cox in Atlanta as their ISP. Yaf (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you review the IP's edits, including two made to the article at the end of May, the user seems to be attempting to edit in line with NPOV and related principles. It does not appear that they are supporting one view or another, or otherwise attempting to unbalance the article. Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. --tc2011 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic
I need help on chiropractic. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please be more specific. What's the current issue? Can you provide some section links and diffs? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the brevity, but thanks. This type of conversation with QuackGuru has been going on for weeks now and is getting very wearysome. We can't get anything done and it is very disruptive, especially with all the reverts and claims of consensus. He talks in circles and when we finally agree on something, he starts over at the beginning. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust my way of doing things accordingly. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going have one of our solid volunteers from WP:MEDCAB swing by to see if it's just a miscommunication issue, personality conflict, et cetera. This may well be a situation that can reach a peaceful solution and I'd like to give that a shot. If even with assistance there's still problems with the attitudes or actions of some people, I can step in to mitigate any disruptive editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- More than one editor disagrees with Dematt's version. For example, the WHO quotes are boring and are only suggestions. I explained this to Dematt. I want the education section to be fully referenced and accurate. Accuracy is a good thing. NPOV is to be respected. QuackGuru 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I appreciate more information. I understand the current situation and I think some help in reaching consensus might be just what the article needs. Let's see if some volunteer assistance can help get things on track, OK? If not, there are always other options to minimize disruption. Vassyana (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some help reching consensus would be great. So far we have multiple editors in support of draft #3, Eubulides supporting "either 3 or 7", and QuackGuru supporting draft #7 (and stating that he refuses to consider draft 3). It seems that OM has once again come by to edit war in QuackGuru's version. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. Read what Eubulides wrote about draft 7. Draft 7 has been improved and is far better than draft 3. This is easy to understand. Please read my comments. QuackGuru 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I must be simpled minded then, as I don't see how draft 7 is better than draft 3, but that can discussed on the talk page of Chiropractic, rather than wasting space here. However, for the record, Eubulides stated here "I support either education 3 or education 7 as improvements over what's in Chiropractic now." While he is free to change his mind, I don't believe there have been any major changes to either drafts since then. What perhaps should be brought up here are the multiple instances of QuackGuru's disruptive editing on the respective talk page, mostly violations of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT guideline, which I have reminded him of
severalmultiple times(, , ). DigitalC (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)- Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with either POV on this matter, one thing is clear - QG is once again pounding his edits through and around the objections of multiple editors. That's not collaborative and it's very disruptive and disrespectful of other editors. He needs to learn to back off, quit harassing other editors like Dematt, and actually just get lost. He's been an embarassment to skeptics for a long time and is the direct cause of much disruption whereever he edits. His wikilawyering is very tiresome. -- Fyslee / talk 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- This was the previous version reverted to: 17:28, 27 May 2008 1st revert: 03:44, 12 June 2008 2nd revert: 18:38, 12 June 2008 3rd revert: 20:27, 12 June 2008 4th revert: 21:26, 12 June 2008 Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 12 June 2008 Please note: The block of WHO quotes were previously removed but Dematt readded them four times in under 24 hours. Despite the strong objections to the WHO quotes Dematt continued to readd them. QuackGuru 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I looked over the two drafts, and some of the discussion, and it seemed the differences are minor and do not involve POV. QG has obviously not been helping the situation much. I reverted him once to stop him from edit warring, and he went right to my talk page and started in on me. But he's not the only problem, and really I think it needs to go through the process. From what I can see, there is nothing much positive that can happen before then. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with either POV on this matter, one thing is clear - QG is once again pounding his edits through and around the objections of multiple editors. That's not collaborative and it's very disruptive and disrespectful of other editors. He needs to learn to back off, quit harassing other editors like Dematt, and actually just get lost. He's been an embarassment to skeptics for a long time and is the direct cause of much disruption whereever he edits. His wikilawyering is very tiresome. -- Fyslee / talk 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I must be simpled minded then, as I don't see how draft 7 is better than draft 3, but that can discussed on the talk page of Chiropractic, rather than wasting space here. However, for the record, Eubulides stated here "I support either education 3 or education 7 as improvements over what's in Chiropractic now." While he is free to change his mind, I don't believe there have been any major changes to either drafts since then. What perhaps should be brought up here are the multiple instances of QuackGuru's disruptive editing on the respective talk page, mostly violations of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT guideline, which I have reminded him of
- See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. Read what Eubulides wrote about draft 7. Draft 7 has been improved and is far better than draft 3. This is easy to understand. Please read my comments. QuackGuru 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overly promoting guidelines/suggestions using a long end run of WHO quotes is POV. Fyslee claims I am a skeptic. I never was a skeptic and I disagree with most skeptics on a list of issues. QuackGuru 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not POV, it's just bad writing. That's a mainstream source. If you guys just explained the disputes more openly and fully, you wouldn't have to worry about such details so much. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether it is a mainstream source or not. Misplaced Pages should not be used to overly promote a guideline to become a world wide standard. QuackGuru 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well if we agree it isn't a POV issue, then we agree the quotes should be left out because you are right that they are boring. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- They are boring to us but some editors like the quotes. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. QuackGuru 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Need to talk
Heya, we need to talk sometime soon, I figure. Will you have time? (Please reply per e-mail). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I leave a message?
Just to say howdy? :)
Arcayne has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Arcayne () 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- How dare you say howdy and spread some wikilove!! And with a cookie???? What if I'm diabetic!? What if I'm gluten intolerant? Did you even think to get me a rice flour cookie made with sugar substitute you insensitive brute!? :D Thanks for the cheerful thought! How're things with you? Vassyana (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, its a poison cookie, stuffed full of electrically charged bits of glass, tinfoil and oil lobbyists. It wasn't meant for you to eat, but to fling at some miserable bastard who truly deserves the very life crushed out of them. ;)
- I am doing pretty well, thank you. Been trying to fight the good fight, with varying success. You? - Arcayne () 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- YAY! *covets his newfound Ultimate Cookie of Smiting* This is the best gift ever! :)
- I'm doing pretty well. Real life is a bit hectic, and wiki is somewhat frustrating at the moment, but really my life is good so I cannot complain. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- (laughing at the Cookie of Smiting moniker). I do believe it is +3 vs. Ass-Clowns and POV-driven Feltch Monkeys. But yes, wiki is proving somewhat frustrating at the moment. Projects insisting that the rules don't apply to them and whatnot and some wacky crap regarding NFC#8. Someone should really knuckle that definition down, as it is pretty darn vague. - Arcayne () 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's vague about it? What problems are arising from it? Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- (laughing at the Cookie of Smiting moniker). I do believe it is +3 vs. Ass-Clowns and POV-driven Feltch Monkeys. But yes, wiki is proving somewhat frustrating at the moment. Projects insisting that the rules don't apply to them and whatnot and some wacky crap regarding NFC#8. Someone should really knuckle that definition down, as it is pretty darn vague. - Arcayne () 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
A user you have dealt with previously
Moved to AN/I here.
I am banned
Moved to AN/I here
Your comment on WT:NOTOR
I enjoyed your comment on Wikipedia_talk:These_are_not_original_research#Neologisms. Your comment seems relevant in the context of current issues over neutrality in the titling of circumcision and female genital cutting. I believe that contradictory criteria are in fact used in determining the titles for these two articles. If you're interested, one comment of mine addressing this is here. In any case, very interesting stuff. Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Curiosity killed the cat
I'm wondering how my name got involved here. I tried to read the various talking points (and Martin can make a LONG point), and I don't find my name being abused. I know I'm the subject of a lot of drama, but I didn't think I was here! OrangeMarlin 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Vassyana saw fit to sanction me for saying that if Ludwig is going to present evidence, he needs to use diffs and quotes. I said it on a section where you were mentioned, but it had nothing to do with you. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- OrangeMarlin, your name was raised because it was brought up here. You obviously didn't do anything wrong in the linked sections, so no worries. Sorry for any confusion. Vassyana (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- First of all Martin, you're not going to find sympathy from me. I don't think SA is an angel by any means, but you bait him badly and constantly. Again, maybe SA could respond better, but that's not playing nice. As for my name, oh yeah, I laughed. Ludwigs needs to chill out a bit, especially accusing me of being in a cabal. Oh, never mind that happens daily. OrangeMarlin 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I never baited SA. Show the diffs. Not sure what you're talking about, as I never read the section where I posted that advice to Ludwig. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist
Sheesh, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Long_and_short_of_it is getting full of stupid. All I ask is that if SA's going to be sanctioned as well as MartinPhi, that some hard evidence is provided. Then what happens? Tom Butler comes in and... um... shows other people attacking SA, while SA seems to be acting sensibly. I mean, GOD. If that's all the evidence against him - that a few users don't like him - then I don't see how ASA can be sanctioned: Proof by assertion doesn't cut it when doling out sanctions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I was trying to avoid... a "diff war". I didn't want to add to it, but since I was requested to with five, I added what I feel is a succinct summary of SA's reciprocal harassment. --Nealparr 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The diffs you provided show me pointing out in a civil fashion where Martinphi was disrupting articles. If that is really "harassment", then arbcom is also guilty of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)