Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 7 April 2009

Warnings

It's weird

that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia ,

And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied: .

Several applications are obviously required...

I'clast harassment

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.

Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.

I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)

I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.

The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.

I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.

"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Hi. You said at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG2: ""civil" is almost always in the eye of the offended, not the policy." I disagree. Would you be open to discussing this point? -GTBacchus 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not because I don't wish to discuss, but often I find that such discussions only fossilise our already established positions. However in saying that, the things that different editors find that they are offended over, and pull WP:CIVIL out is amazing. You can see on JzG's RFC who and what get's offended about things that people just shouldn't be offended over. However given that WP is evolving into this oddball social experiment where the #1 policy is not offending people, I suppose it makes sense. A better place to discuss, rather than my talkpage, is here. Thanks --Shot info (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning

Thanks for catching that howler in Mercury poisoning. I made this change which I hope fixes the immediate problem. The article still needs organizational work but one patch at a time. Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem Shot info (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

VU parallels?

I'm confused - what's VU? Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vanished User. It's a codename for the user who was ultimately persecuted by the ArbCom as fallout from the Matthew Hoffman case. Shot info (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Yeah. That's so confusing, and I don't know what I am supposed to know or not know. Is his original username forgotten as far as Misplaced Pages's collective memory goes? I started off assuming that all of this was common knowledge, but now I don't know any more. I also stopped reading the Hoffman/VU case too early on - I only discovered today that the use of the term "dogs" in the context of of anti-anti-science editors (or maybe just ID-related ones) was related to a comment in an arbcomm ruling. Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Word choice

I think you mean "credulous" here. Also, though I agree that the community needs to do far more to eliminate {{in-universe}} bias, I do not think that that comment will do much to endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think the die has already been cast. Sure, with a bit of wishful thinking and hope we could endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. Sadly however the facts of the matter beg to differ. Of course it remains to be seen if I am incorrect, but we have been down this path before... Shot info (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
Your continued joking at User talk:Badger Drink is disruptive and considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages if you continue. =D Badger Drink (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find a template for incivility, but I figured that one was close enough. I get where you're coming from. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW - you are right, for all the NOISE that people generate about CIVILity, there is no warning template here. That's amazing, although probably just reflective that CIVILity is largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages. Particularly as it moves away from being the Encyclopaedia anyone can edit, to been an exercise in myspacitation, roleplaying, and getting up your edit count. Shot info (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is a long standing principle on Misplaced Pages and hardly "largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages". The page existed, was oft-referenced and considered a core principle over four years ago. It was in large part based on this essay on meta, as well as the "positive" explanation of the inherent principle behind such long-standing policies as "no personal attacks". Incivility, of varying stripes, was a central point of concern in the majority of the earliest ArbCom cases as well, In the "old old days" of Misplaced Pages, the concept was referred to as "Wikiquette" instead of "civility", but the principle was the same. I'm not looking to enter a debate over the concept itself, but rather just pointing out that the perception it is a recent phenomena is inaccurate.

In all earnestness, why do you feel so antagonistic towards the civility policy? Why do you feel that it is a detriment to Misplaced Pages? (I apologize if those questions are malformed because I am misunderstanding you.) Vassyana (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your edit until now. I don't have a problem with civility. I have a problem when it's CIVIL first and only. Sure there are lots of admins who claim that they regard the other 4 pillars with equal measure, but as a skeptic, you have to ask for the evidence, and the evidence is that only CIVILity is enforced. And it's judgement is largely arbitrary and capricious as to what is civil to one admin, is the height of a personal attack to another. So what we in the Community see - is admins blocking for basically their own personal feelings (which is probably why so many blocks are overturned).

In the "old days", the civil pov pusher did not exist as admins weren't paralysed by this "uninvolved" (which actually equates to "uninformed") BS and could block problematic editors. Finally after about 2 years, we now have broad topic bans. However the bans are only implemented largely for CIVILity issues (ie/ he isn't nice...block, as opposed to, he isn't improving the project...block). As has been discussed before CIVIL is a weak and easy way out for admins to do their jobs... Shot info (talk)

No need for apologies. You're not obligated to satisfy my curiosities. :D Regardless, thank you for such a complete reply. (And, my apologies for misunderstanding your point previously.) I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now. I would tend to agree it is a problem. I think two of the most serious issues we face is the misuse of sources and stonewalling/beating dead horses/tendacious arguments. What do you think of those issues and their prominence? What do you think are some of the most serious unaddressed concerns we face? Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

*That* account

Dunno who that IP was here - I suspect you're right. Either way, it is an open proxy, so it's now blocked - Alison 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know 100%, but we have a very good idea who it was based on their MO. Let's face it, it was only used for a personal attack and was via an open proxy (so more evidence it's from a banned user). So while the account is blocked, the only way that banned users will get the hint is if their vitriolic trolling is purged from Misplaced Pages. Besides, per WP:TALK any editor can refactor comments that don't relate to the article - which Davkal's don't. Shot info (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I did reply, on the AN/I. I do think it was not attack enough to justify blanking, when the old adage "better to let folks think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it" applies so much more aptly. I support SA's efforts to keep the project clear of Homeopathicruft, but not his behavior at all times. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that admins have blocked him (and others) for much less "offensive" personal attacks, its odd that people are getting offended when SA effectively "takes the law into his own hands". And now is being accused of "edit warring". As I have pointed out above to V, civility is obviously something different to certain admins, depending on who is saying what to whom and where. Arbitary and capricious. Shot info (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR

Shot Info, if you want to file a case at Dispute Resolution or wish to discuss possible MedCom activities regarding Quackwatch, let me know. I can be a mediator for this case if you so desire, or I can see if another mediator can head this one up. seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An RfM would be a good start, but I'm personally not interested in doing the leg work in getting it off the ground, nor am I interested in watching it crash and burn when somebody pulls out. More interested in seeing admins become better informed about what is actually happening over in QW land rather than the last 50 edits. How can this be done? Dunno, up to admins to reform their ways. Shot info (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in here but I've been lurking throughout all of this since I gave myself time out from that article do to this kind of behavior. What I am seeing is a group of editors tagging each other from article to article and having a couple of administrators that this groups goes running to. Then amazingly I am seeing just other editors being banished from the articles for a week and now there is conversations going on at SA's talk page suggesting that he not revert at all and one of the editors who was involved in SA and Ronz being blocked coming into the picture again here, . Now to me this is egging on to get SA to react negatively, I know I would which is why I don't edit or even comment anymore in QW land. I got slapped down there even when trying to be polite and find a compromise. Then I have been seeing administrators going there but no one so far has commented on the title, Ronz has been blocked for a week, and I still don't understand the reasoning for that, but yet this was posted on the talk page and Ronz obviously cannot speak in his defense of what is being said there, so what is the point of moving the section with the title to the talk page of QW when it was on the talk page of the editor who put it there? Something wrong is going on here when outsiders can see a 'gang' running together from article to article to help revert to their preferred versions and no one does anything about it yet other editors are banned from speaking their own mind about things. This civility behavior has changed so much in the time I've been here. I like to be civil at all times and leave when I am getting upset, but to be honest, I have find that this group is civil to push their views in a uncivil way that gets the opposing parties removed because others feel they aren't civil enough. I do not think that what SA says here, "Wow, ImperfectlyInformed is so sure that his hatred for Stephen Barret should be codified in his cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context summarizing, I'm not sure that he should be allowed on this page any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)" is uncivil at all since the editor her/himself states this on the talk page to begin with. But now there is a threat against SA to take things further again. This, IMHO, is wrong. Sorry to rant on your page Shot, just this has been bugging the heck out of me now. Good day everyone, --CrohnieGal 11:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Davkal...

You reverted an anon with the edit summary "more davkal"... could you explain? The anon has only been constructive on that article, which I have been watching for some while. Personally, I added Anthony Kenny's critical review to the article in case you want insight on my own POV.

What is going on? Merzul (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Davkal obviously; is there any reason to believe this IP is that user? Merzul (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proxy IP, follows SA around and made some edits calling for his blocking/avoiding ArbCom? Shot info (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right that he arrived at that article right after SA and his first edit was just to undo that particular action. Of course, talk of ArbCom is not exactly the first thing a new editor would do. I still believe his contributions on that article, especially here, has been helpful. I don't feel strongly about "former biochemist", but I don't really see a reason to delete it either. McGrath is a former biochemist, many reviews of the book compare his background to that of Dawkins.

I'm not going to dig into his contributions further because I trust your judgement that this is a sock. Do whatever is needed with the user, but I take full responsibility for the edits to that page. You can of course revert it on the merits of the material, if that's your judgement, but don't revert simply because this was a sock. Merzul (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for the goodwill and edit away :-) Shot info (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tags

{{Lopsided}} and {{POV-statement}} are the only two that I can find.

I probably won't be editing any of the articles under ArbCom sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically those articles are not under an ArbCom implemented sanction. They are under a sanction implemented by a couple of admins who have taken it upon themselves to implement their own version of the WikiPillars. Mind you if it stops the civil pov pushers it would be a good thing. But as I've argued previously, those admins who aren't interested in editing the encyclopedia are normally only interested in Misplaced Pages being Myspacedia. These admins are more than welcome to the civil pov pushers and will (over time) find their target articles will become nonsense - so good on those admins, they do a great job of making Misplaced Pages a better place for the regular editors. I do find it amusing when these admins are taken to task over their performance and they whine about "shouldn't you be editing" while they don't understand the very irony in their own lack of editing contributions :-) Shot info (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The irony abounds. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Shot info, as I am sure you are aware, the Quackwatch article is under conditions for editing. The top condition is "No reverts". However, you did exactly that, reverting a tag that had been placed on the article just a few minutes earlier. Please be aware that because of the Arbcom Homeopathy case, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place additional restrictions on articles or editors, in order to avoid disruption to the project. Please consider this your last warning, that if you take any other disruptive actions, you could be placed under further restrictions such as being banned from the article or topic area, or even from having your account access blocked entirely. So please, try to improve your mode of editing. Don't revert, do stay civil and constructive, and try to help out with positive edits and comments, and there won't be any further need for action. Thanks, Elonka 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, get with this thing called editing. The reasons it was removed is quite clearly articulated both in the edit summary and also in the talk page. If you wish to engage in this petty sort of administration, then edit the article yourself. Otherwise please engage on the talkpage and become informed on the reasons editors edit. I note that you still haven't warned Ludwigs over the clear revert he performed - your oversight in this regard was predicted however. Shot info (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dawkins on Darwin"

FYI: "Dawkins on Darwin" to air August 4, 2008

I thought you might be interested in the following:

A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, really regardless of the # of times Dawkins uses the phrase, until there is a source that clearly says (for example, an arguement put forward by Dawkins) the one is the other, we cannot say that one is the other here. Unless it's in popular usage...but even then, there still will be a source that clearly states so. Unfortunately until we have this source, us editors are doing "the work" of equivalising, when Misplaced Pages calls "original research". Shot info (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This explains a lot

Wikipedia_talk:Working_group_on_ethnic_and_cultural_edit_wars --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A simplier solution would be for certain admins to enforce WP:LOP rather than making new guildlines to jusitify ignoring policy :-( Shot info (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They're desperately looking for something like 3RR which they can apply simply and easily. I was worried that they were just throwing out NPOV and the like in favor of CIVIL. Now I'm concerned that they're throwing out everything without realizing it. Basically, they're unable to settle with the fact that creating a good encyclopedia is hard work. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I think they didn't realise that when they <gasp> became admins, it involved them in doing more work than normal. I do enjoy how certain admins whine about the workload required of being an admin, but still like the authority that having the tools entertains. Mind you, if they actually looked at the existing policies, they would find that its easy to implement what they want with them. Only problem is, the admins would have to do some work. I gather the withdrawl of the experts is hurting the admins as now they don't have anybody to blame for their inaction but themselves. Sad really. And avoidable. Shot info (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also know as all those that oppose us. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also a way for certain editors to say to a consensus "you're a tag team and can be ignored". Shot info (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Misplaced Pages itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be?

Um, what? I didn't do anything to incite the snarky responses I was getting from the user, and politely asked him to stop. He marks it as read and goes back and makes yet another, utterly unnecessary uncivil, condescending remark. How is leaving it alone - an all-too-often ineffective method of problem resolution here in WP - going to get him to either grow up or go away? It certainly didn't work back in April, when he last inserted himself into a conversation and was an utter jerk then, too. So, lend some advice on how to address the issue, Shot. Because I am not sure how a non-admin can justify removing a post from one person to the other person's discussion page. - Arcayne () 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't want a fight (although it looks like your looking for one). You have dropped a note on his talk. He removed it. You readded it and suggest that he needs to reread it? Sure Avb may be snarky but you have done your bit but seem to be trying your best to top his snarkiness. Feel free to revert my deletion if you wish, but it will only seem like your now hasselling the guy. Surely you've been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know that if one guy is "bad" his "badness" can be easily masked from admin oversight by another editor going on a rant rampage? Shot info (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't looking for a fight at all. I wasn't looking for Avb to be a jerk, either. Your point is a good one, though. - Arcayne () 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SI. I think it's best to leave Arcayne alone when he's being a giant pain in the ass, but I refuse to refrain from reverting his edits when they are obviously wrong. Avb 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hardy (designer)

Thanks for contributing. I've been discussing the reference with Dezignr, who's new. I've copied the discussion to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs there

(a) You can discuss in talk

(b) You can move it there

But just deleting for the sake of deleting does not seem to be constructive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that the discussion had reached a logical conclusion and regardless of the consensus, it didn't avoid the problem that it dealt with Barrett specifically not QW. I don't mind it staying in there for additional discussion if you like. Shot info (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RfA_Review

In case you had missed this, I thought you might want to discuss User:Shot_info/RfA_Review_Recommend_Phase --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you like. Feel free to drop me an email. Shot info (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Chris Heimerdinger article.

Hi, you recently reverted and installed four tags on the Chris Heimerdinger article. Would you be so kind as to point out which of the 15 or so sentences in this completely rewritten article you feel are needing attention according to these tags? Thank you for your time.

There is no consensus for their removal on the talk page yet. Feel free to discuss on the talk page of the article and get the acceptance of the editors of the article for your suggested course of action. Until you achieve consensus, you are likely to just engage in an edit war. Also please sign your posts. Thanks Shot info (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length on the talk page. Ronz has yet to specify which of the 15 or so sentences the four tags apply to. This means that the rest of us are unable to address his concerns.

It's incumbent on you when placing a tag or editing an article to make an informed decision regarding your edits. That is why I've asked you to support your tagging the article as Peacock Words, Verification, Advertisement and Notability. Ronz has actually placed the same tags on a number of related LDS wiki articles. I have no dog in this fight, I don't think I've ever even met a Mormon - I've simply responded to the tags Ronz put there by adding 9 refs and whittling the article down to around 15+ sentences. It's not a great article, but there is no basis at this time for those 4 tags. May I revert your tags? Absent anyone supporting their tags or indicating what exactly they're tagging I believe they have outlived their applicability and should be removed. I only ask that you support or withdraw your edit.76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask on the talk page first to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Leave it for a few days (it's not going to hurt anybody if they stay up there) and if nobody has any objections, then remove them. At the moment, it seems like an edit war is going on. Shot info (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If I believe that the tags are not appropriate and that rewritting the article and adding 9 refs have met all objections - and if the original tagger is unwilling or unable to support his tags then I need to discuss this with those who are encouraging him and supporting these tags. Again, it is incumbent on you to have a supportable position on your edit and your tags. I should mention that it appears that C.Fred has withdrawn his tags at this time.76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS and my edit at Fred's talk. Ta Shot info (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have opened a section on removing the tags on the Heimdinger talk page. I intend to remove them in 36 hours if no one is willing or able to support the tags with specifics.76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, have you read WP:CONSENSUS yet? Also, can I recommend that you get an account? Also are you 70.131.83.95, 76.202.249.62 & 76.217.90.97 as they are in IL as well? Shot info (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I am the only IP of note editing in the article, I think my style is pretty distinctive.76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are my IP's, I checked, also .176 at the very least.

That's fine, getting an account is easy and it makes the arguements in the talk page MUCH easier to follow, particularly when there are multiple IPs on a talkpage (who may or not be necessarily the same person). Also it's somewhat odd when you post, Ronz answers, then F&F and/or Georgia then respond for you. Much confusion, easily solved with an account :-). Ta Shot info (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually didn't work that way. Ronz did about a dozen edits after the discussion and completely refactored everything. I reverted him three times on the talk page and then just gave up, he moved several editors posts, copied posts deleted responses added and deleted sections, etc ... it's useless and impossible to follow it now.76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz is an editor with vast experience in Misplaced Pages. So what us other editors see, is one experienced editor discussing policy, making recommendations, poking the article along, versus a bunch of IPs, single purpose accounts and possible multiple accounts of one common editor. In this case you will find that many editors (like myself and Elonka with F&F) will help out and give advise, but actually will not edit the article (as we really don't know what is going on). So on the balance we tend to err on the side of the editor with the most experience, rather than those that don't. This is why I keep encouraging you all to discuss on the talk page. And keep discussing, and if it's still not how you like it, discuss somemore. Remember that articles are a consensus between editors, and Ronz is one of those editors. Shot info (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And get a user account :-) I have a buddy who lives in Aurora out of interest :-) Shot info (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Aurora well, what does he do out here? (Here's where I gave up trying to follow along..)76.238.22.59 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask you to section off the sock discussion? It's critical that all editors be given every opportunity to clearly state their reasons for tagging so that the article can be improved. I have asked Ronz at least 10 times now to specify his objections and he has yet state anything specific at all. I'm hoping that maybe he'll finally say what he objects to. Thank you. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Far more than just sockpuppetry

I came to the article in response to Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive52#Chris_Heimerdinger. All the editing seems to got that under control. The only BLP issues we have now are WP:NPF.

A number of editors have claimed to be editing for Chris_Heimerdinger, and Chris himself has edited the articles heavily with an ip. I assume he's as well. Misplaced Pages:COIN#Chris_Heimerdinger doesn't even touch all the coi problems.

Yes, I said "articles": Passage to Zarahemla and Tennis Shoes Adventure Series where more of the same is occurring. We're making pretty good progress with Chris's article and the series. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think there is some socking going on, hence my suggestion on the talk page for editors to have a look at it. At anyrate, there seems to be enough admins stalking watching over things now :-) Shot info (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I started working on a sockpuppet report, but couldn't find anything obvious, and not enough to justify a checkuser. Mostly it looks like Chris, one or more people in direct contact with him, a number of fans, and one or more ips that aren't WP:SPAs.

The WP:NPF problem is going to be hard to resolve. Chris isn't notable outside the LDS community. When we search far and wide for potential sources, a lot of them turn out to be his legal problems. How do we justify keeping those out while keeping positive info from local newspapers? Beats me. Eventually, we're going to have to choose what level of detail we go into without bias.

Meanwhile, check out the list of barely notable individuals that came up when I started looking for some clarification on WP:N - Wikipedia_talk:Notability#WP:NPF_conflicts_with_WP:NNC.3F. --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:ScienceApologist

I wasn't clear what the purpose of your comment there was. Maybe you can explain it to me. --John (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy, have a read of WP:DTTR Shot info (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was already familiar with it and have just reread it. I am still not getting your point. Maybe you can explain it to me. --John (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

? Shot info (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you were pointing out that the warning which SA had already read and deleted should not have been a templated one but hand-crafted. Thanks for the feedback; I do often hand-write warning messages but not all the time. --John (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries - a hand warning would help SA as he is already greatly bitter and twisted by admins not slamming those who outed him (while going after Mathsci for doing something similar) and generally coming down on every infaction. But at least he is still pushing pro-science, something a lot of us have given up on. O well. Shot info (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Shot info, could you please try not to refer to other editors as "bitter and twisted"? I'd appreciate if you could refactor your comment. Remember, for best results, please try to comment just on content, and not on other contributors, thanks. --Elonka 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, your concern is noted. I will notify SA of this thread and of your concerns and I'm confident that if he feels put out by my comments, I will refactor. What is a greater concern is your inability to let things go. Is SA the new ChrisO? Why do you need to do this to Misplaced Pages editors? Shot info (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ZING!!!!!!!

You think? LOL. OrangeMarlin 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Irresponsible

Before you undo my edit of the Robert Todd Carroll passage, you must respond to my rebuttal of Carroll on the Sheldrake talk page. Otherwise, your insistence on continuing to undo my edit is irresponsible. If you are not willing to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner, you do not belong in the Misplaced Pages community.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, as have others. Can I recommend that you have a look at WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. Some other suggestions would be WP:AGF and WP:TROLL. Thanks Shot info (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being part of the usual pro-science, pro-mainstream, pro-verifiability crowd. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can it be possible?

That admins don't learn from their own RfCs before slanging off at others? Shot info (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

True, the problem is that OM sent the email to arbcom and FT2 responded apparently, now talk about ironic! When is there going to be an end to the protection of special 'clicks'? Whatever, don't forget to vote, this time it is more important so that hopefully the project gets some new blood to make the 'final' decisions. Have you been watching the Shoemaker stuff? or Something need to be done and voting this time around is the only thing I can think of to get heard. I've become very disappointed with the RFC and recall way of doing things. Anyways, just disappointed with what's been going on lately, I should say for awhile now. --CrohnieGal 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Misplaced Pages come of Age

Or is it full of analysers with no sense of humour? You choose. Shot info (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry

Godlovestruth didn't have a page in the first place, so he's not likely to mind. My edit was kind of a message to him- I think he'll like it, and I have no intention of sockpuppeting or whatever. Thebestlaidplans (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are a sockpuppet, but rather that you should best be informed of the policy given that particular editor has been blocked for being a sockpuppeter. Shot info (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Shot info/ACE2008

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)