Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 23 December 2005

Bogdanov Affair

"adb" is likely to be a Boganov sock puppet (check the history of the page where I posted on that, it has been removed as well as Igor interesting editing). I've posted a small abstract on this issue on Mediation Cabal. --YBM 00:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Editors should be logged in

You should probably be aware of WP:FUD. This has been an issue since WP was formed and is unlikely to change in any way. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogandov

I'm prepared to shoot people as needed, or bring them to the arbcom. --Snowspinner 23:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation on Bogdanov Affair

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on the article Bogdanov Affair. Whether you agree with the contents of an article or not is irrelevant; the point is, more than 3 reverts a day is disruptive. And it seems like you may have used as many as 10, just in the last 24 hours. If you have any questions, concerns, or other problems, please leave a note on this talk page; I will watch it and answer any worries that you might have. Ral315 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I wear this blockage proudly. No one else was standing up to the flagrant misuse of Wkipedia by Igor Bogdanov and his fans or sock puppets until about 18:30 UTC. Finally some of the system admistrators did, but Igor uses IP addresses, he changes them and he poses as sock puppets and no admin was protecting the page. I warned Snowspinner that it was a mistake to unprotect it because the Bogdanovs are completely uninterested in balanced article about the facts of this affair they are involved in. They want only to obscure facts and are tenaciously tayloring the article to be flattering to themselves. I have no doubt that what I did today was absolutely the right thing to do, given the circumstances. --r b-j 21:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was

Yes, absolutely I was. If you'd like further details, feel free to e-mail me. --Nunh-huh 01:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it's still somewhat of a non-sequitur <g> --Nunh-huh 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I'm not inclined to do that, simply because it's not the way Misplaced Pages should work. If the article needs protection, I'd rather bring the people causing that to be so to the arbcom. Snowspinner 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested in a matter you are involved in. Please see WP:RFAR for more. Snowspinner 19:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR again?

I wish I hadn't had to do this, but guys, you need to follow the guidelines. I've blocked indefinitely several sockpuppets of the other guy, but you'll still have to wear a 24 hours block due to 3RR on Bogdanov Affair. Again, I'm not stating which side is right and which one not, but both sides have to abide by the rules. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hey, ☺drini♫, i can deal with it. but you know that Igor will not. he will use another IP and slide by this restriction. in the meantime, i will wear my blockage with dignity. r b-j 02:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

(thanks for the note, oh BTW, you saw where admin Snowspinner said explicitly not to worry about the 3RR when reverting posts from Igor to that page, did you not?)

Drini, i dunno if you are monitoring this page our not, but do you know how effective your block of "the other guy" is? check the Bogdanov page. i've never been a 2nd Amendment supporter, but now i understand what they mean when they say "When you take away our guns, only the crooks will be armed because, being crooks, they will not give up their guns voluntarily." i'd appreciate it if you would make note of this with the other admins. r b-j 11:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the issue as I hadn't previously being in contact with Bogdanov Affair, I only did what it seemed logical to me. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that link, but I have my doubts at upholding it. Being that snowspinner is an involved party on the arbcom, I don't think he can unilaterally declare 3RR (which is an official policy of wikipedia) is not valid anymore. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-resistance vs pacifism

Rbj, I am not the editor that made the change concerning non-resistance/pacifism. Neither am I a Mennonite. But in studying Mennonites in the past, I have run across the idea that their view of non-resistance differs from the typical American pacifism. I cannot say whether that is true, or whether it might just be straining at a gnat. But I can say that seems to be the perception of many or some in the Mennonite community. It is addressed briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Non-resistance#History_of_Nonresistance

Hope this helps. - Rlvaughn 01:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert

How you revert things is to go into the history, select the good version, edit it, and save. This will revert it to that version. Happy reverting! :"D - RoyBoy 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a browser limitation, which browser do you use? I find Firefox to be an excellent browser. - RoyBoy 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey. Thanks for agreeing with me in the General Complants page. ^__^

Dposse 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

I'd recommend removing your e-mail from your user page. In time the page gets duplicated elsewhere; and with Google prioritizing Misplaced Pages it could be trouble. If you want to link safely to your email, put a link like this on your page. - RoyBoy 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

The controversy regarding the Bogdanov's work should occur in other forums, not here. Our article should be a report about something, not part of it, as it is now. My feeling is that you have become part of it, even if you originally were not. Fred Bauder 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of SPIRES information in Bogdanov Affair

Dear Rbj: I just thought I should drop a short note re. the work you have done in referencing the comparative numbers of paper citations on Bogdanov Affair. It is an important point to raise, and thank you for your contributions in this area; however, for the sake of encyclopaedic style, brevity, and readibility, I have condensed your paragraph on SPIRES data down considerably. I do hope that you agree that my condensed version is more readable.

In addition, regarding some of the text that was added in that same paragraph, and the edit summaries that you made, I thought I should direct you to the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view policy for further information on how matters should be presented on Misplaced Pages. No matter what our opinions are of the merits (or lack of) pertaining to the work of the Bogdanov brothers, we must nonetheless present all views fairly and equally in the article.

I would like to thank you for your continued cooperation, and your hard work on the article.

Best regards,

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair

All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affari) are banned from Misplaced Pages pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Misplaced Pages editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Misplaced Pages editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

A less restrictive injunction Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Proposed_decision#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is under consideration and may replace the total bans. Fred Bauder 19:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair

Dear Rbj: Thank you very much for the heads-up. I had already blocked LLL along with the other users based on my own judgement, since the user met the edit history criterion in the injunction. I must confess, however, that I didn't notice the unreverted edit - thank you for pointing it out, I have fixed it now. Once again, thank you for your continued participation in trying to make this article a better place - I am sorry that I lumped you in with the other critics to begin with; I feel somewhat guilty that I initially mistook you for some sort of relation of YBM (the three-initial names, you see - XAL and YBM are one alphabet position apart, and Rbj sort of looked similar at a glance - coupled with the talk page posts I saw, I rather jumped to a false conclusion). Please accept my most sincere apologies for this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun

Hey Rbj. I had lots of fun this morning when I looked at the changes on the Bogdanov article. These guys really have no shame, and more sadly, absolutely no ethics. It's good to see that the admins are still taking care of the page. I hope they report to the Committee the ridiculous and obvious attempts of the Bogdanovs to avoid the ban. Take care. Ze miguel 08:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

just a small note,

Thank you for your note. Actually, I just I just stumbled onto the Bogdanov page, (I normally edit over in the MiddleEast/Israel/Palestine section of WP. i.e: not completely unfamiliar with edit wars.. ;-)) And thanks for the warning; I´m definitely not going to do more than my 3RR pr. day. (I´ve done mine for today) It´s strange though: all 3 revert were of highly POV stuff by editors who had 0 previous editing on WP....I would not be very suprised if it was the same person. I have already suggested to Nicholas T. that if it is possible to ban editors with few or 0 edits to edit a page, then that should perhaps be done. An alternative could be to not count the rv (among the 3 pr. day) when you rv a completely new user (or rather: a completely new sock-puppet..?) Anyway: I have the page on my watchlist, and since they (he?) called my editing "Mania reverts" I most certainly will do my dayly quota of reverts from now on, :-) Regards, Huldra 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (ps: sorry to see that you were banned from editing this article )

Bogdanov Affair is now protected

Dear Rbj: Further to your message, and looking at the state of the page history, I have protected the article temporarily to discourage the POV pushing by the various Bogdanov sockpuppets. I am, however, loathed to protect it for a long period of time since there are a few things about the article that I'm not entirely happy with (there are traces of both pro-Bogdanov and critical POV material in the article still, and per guidelines even admins aren't meant to edit articles after the page is protected). I'm planning on unprotecting it in 24 hours, making the appropriate changes to the article, and watching what happens. If Igor continues to POV push, and the revert war becomes intolerable again, I'll re-protect it for a week (168 hrs), which is the maximum permitted under the blocking policy. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Instantaneous frequency

You made a very subtle change at this article, replacing π with 1/2. You did not put an edit summary however. This is not good, as it is tiny changes without explanation which introduce a lot of errors in Misplaced Pages, and the rules at the edit summary page requires that you explain such changes.

May I ask that you write at tall:Instantaneous frequency why you replaced π with 1/2, and that in the future you use an edit summary when you make big edits and when you make small but subtle edits? Thanks, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(I know that you are the originator of that article, but that is no excuse to not explain your actions however. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert the recent changes? — Omegatron 18:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

i said so in the Edit summary. i kept the commas, the section header, the use of \phi instead of \varphi, and perhaps some other improvements you made, but the removal of the PNG rendering and the use of ' instead of \prime made the math much less readable. also the one equation added ${\displaystyle \theta (t)=\omega t+\phi \ }$ is not appropriate at the place where the ange or argument of the sinusoid is being generalized from the linear function in a normal simple sinusoid. r b-j 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

1. If you want all the equations rendered as images, set the "Always render PNG" option in Special:Preferences. I have this set in my preferences and I like it.
2. Using ' instead of ^\prime is recommended on the m:Help:Formula since ^\prime renders wrong for HTML users. Besides, it makes the TeX source more readable this way.

The way it's currently written with ω as both a function and a variable is still kind of confusing. It could still use some work. — Omegatron 19:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bogdanov Saga

an anonymous IP that traces back to the same "RIPE Network" that Igor B, a banned editor from wikipedia, has been known to use, has again vandalized Bogdanov Affair less than an hour after it was unprotected. are you surprized? can you protect the article again? Igor will not give up this soon. the article has to be protected long enough that he might give up. he might never give up, and in that case, i do not know what to suggest, but can you revert and protect the article again? r b-j 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

- sigh - Yes, I know, they are back again. I'd sort of hoped they might have had enough... much as I would like to permanently protect the article, doing so is fundamentally un-wiki (since pages are meant to be edited) and I would rather give it a few days before re-protecting it in the interests of fairness to those wishing to edit the article who aren't banned. I have reverted that anon IP, and will continue to keep an eye on the article. If in a few days the editing becomes intolerable to keep reverting, I will protect the page for a week (which is the maximum permitted under the page protection policy). To be honest, though, it isn't that important if they keep vandalising, since their edits are usually killed off quickly enough - and it isn't as if they have been blanking the page entirely, or severely removing text, so their vandalism only counts on the "mild" level. What is more serious is the fact that they have expressly ignored the arbcom's ban, which I'm sure should provide proof to the arbcom of a lack of good faith. Thank you for all your assistance. Peace, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"sigh" is exactly what Urs Schreiber said about the B's at this page: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html . i think this vandalism is worse than blanking or something obvious because it presents itself as legitimacy. it's purpose is much more self-serving than vandalism done for kicks. it's like comparing arson for profit to arson for fun. the B brothers are vandalizing for profit and self-aggrandizement. that is, IMHO, worse.

it's also worse because it is clear that Igor considers himself above the rules and is entitled to edit the page even though banned from editing anything at WP. can you tell me, is the ArbCom paying close attention? r b-j 01:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree, since the major issue at play is that if we do simply sit back and let them modify the article they will happily re-skew it towards their POV. The irony is, however, that the areas where POV text actually exists are not the ones that the Bogdanovs appear to be trying to edit. Moreover, I actually think that their contempt of the arbcom is, in some respects, worse than their earlier actions, since it destroys any shred of good faith that we could possibly have assumed. As for whether or not the Arbcom is paying close attention - I honestly don't know, I'm not an arbitrator; most of their discussion takes place "behind the scenes" via their IRC channel and their mailing list, neither of which is publically viewable, so there really is no way of telling other than their own word. I think that they will certainly be able to see the edit history for themselves, though, which is pretty obvious, and I can hardly see them passing a final decision on the case without reviewing the page history. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My recent edits to Bogdanov Affair

was not mere "minor copyediting". the fact that both B brothers barely got Ph.Ds with a lot of pressuing and cajoling (this need not be included because it is some professors subjective opinion) and finally with the lowest possible passing endorsement (this is very uncommon for a PhD. it's letting someone pass with a "D" and this is not subjective) tells the reader something salient about the Bogdanovs as the genius physicists they claim to be. if it's good enough for the New York Times, it's good enough for WP.

changing the CQG "apology" quote to soften the gravity of the problem that they, themselves, recognized is literally a POV edit that the Bogdanovs would do themselve. it is untrue to claim that edit as NPOV editing (even though i do not claim that you have a specific axe to grind here, the edit, nonetheless is POV).

is definitely POV editing. this is relevant, salient, and factual information. a Nobel Laureate publically places his reputation taking a stand that these guys are imposters. that their "physics" is non0existent in the discipline.

i cannot presume to know your thoughts, but why are you coddling the Bogdanovs? especially now that it should be painfully obvious to everyone who these brothers are and what they are. these are definitely POV editing that the Bogdanovs do not deserve and the French (who read English) public, particularly, have a right to know.

the article was cleaned up and fine the way it was, with a lot more "soft" content for the B brothers. a lot more than they deserve.

there are other pro-Bogdanov edits you have just done. but this is the most egregious.

respectfully, can you reconsider some of what you have done? r b-j 00:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rbj: I have to say I am quite surprised that you consider what I did was POV; however, please rest assured that my goal is to remain as neutral as possible, and I will change what I have done if you do feel I have made it non-neutral - I am always open to being told I am wrong, that is after all one of the more attractive aspects of a wiki. Let me address your points individually.

For "lowest-possible passing grade" there was no reference attached to it, and as such would fall under the category of "original research" (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). Can you find me a reference which specifically states that the Bogdanovs received this grade for their work, and that it is indeed the lowest possible grade? (A newspaper article, etc. would suffice - you mentioned the New York Times).

As for the CQG quote, all I did as far as far as I am aware was trim the quote down to a reasonable size - I never for one moment thought that it could be construed as changing the intent. On the basis of your bringing this to my attention, I shall change it back promptly.

My edit which you describe as POV editing was merely the removal of what I would consider to be a most unobjective and not particularly useful quote. Regardless of who it is who made it, Nobel Laureate or not, it was not what I would consider to be a factual commentary on the Bogdanov publications (it was more in line with a simple scorn, rather than a proper evaluation). Perhaps you might find me some more objective prose spoken by this source that criticises the Bogdanov's work for what it is - pseudoscience - rather than simply stating they do not exist in science (that quote doesn't even say anything about the quality of their work).

If you would please tell me your opinion on the above I would be most grateful; I appreciate your continued assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nicholas Turnbull's Edits to Bogdanov Affair

I am not saying that User:NicholasTurnbull is, himself, POV. but he certainly did make edits that slanted the article in the same direction the subjects of the article (who are banned from WP completely by ArbCom) would have him make. now if these edits were factual or accurate, that's fine. but he deleted relevant and factual information that, as a fact, were not disputed, even by Igor Bogdanov. it's just that Igor didn't think they were "balanced" and wanted them removed. please research things a little better, Rob. the pruning Nicholas made today definitely had the effect of POV skewing of the article. r b-j 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite me specific edits (i.e. use the history page's comparison tool, and get the URLs) that Nicholas Turnbull made to the article, and explain to me how they are POV. From the perspective of an outsider, they most assuredly are not. I've no wish to get involved in this despicable mess - all the parties involved are behaving most disgustingly in my view, so please don't leave me messages with these sorts of unsupported claims again; particularly not when there are arbitration judgements against people involved in this. Thank you. Rob Church 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Rob, at Usertalk:NicholasTurnbull, i cited three diffs to Nicholas. there were about 10 separate edits, most of which soften the gravity of the content of the article about what literally is a fraud that these guys have perpetrated on, for the most part, the French-speaking popular science community and the physics community. Don't believe me? there is plenty of web research to do (that I have done).

but specifically, i cited three diffs to Nicholas. read each one. then tell me that the diff to the article is or is not less harsh regarding the Bogdanovs. if it is less harch, it's a POV edit unless it was removing unfactual content. if it is about the veracity of the the content that Nicholas deleted, then let me know. if it isn't already supported, it used to be, and it certainly was supported in the talk page or some archive of it. not one of the facts that Nicholas removed is false nor unsupported. the only thing they had in common was they were not flattering to the subjects of the article.

so don't tell me about unsupported claims, we (YBM, Alain_r, and myself) were supporting every iota of evidence, flattering or not, to the article. please do a better job of researching it before coming to such conclusions.r b-j 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't substantiate those claims when making them to me, but that's somewhat besides the point now. If I may suggest it - judging by some of the language you used above, it looks like you are very much in danger of pushing a POV yourself, subconsciously or otherwise. I strongly recommend that you completely ignore the article for a period of time. Incidentally, my task was not to evaluate the content of the article, but to see if specific edits made the article appear to be non-neutral. I also read the entire current revision of the article following that, so yes, I did a considerable amount of research. Please assume good faith in the future. One would think that you would appreciate a pair of neutral eyes. Apparently that is not so, and thus I've no wish to continue with this particular issue. Good day, Rob Church 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

i can assume good faith with you (and i believe that i have with Nicholas and the other admins, and they also with me), but i cannot with the Bogdanovs nor with their sock-puppets nor with their meat-puppets. that good faith was squandered 6 weeks ago by Igor. he is a profoundly mendacious and malignantly narcissitic human being. that's harch to say, but it is what it is and denying it, for me, would be to lose touch with reality.

also, i know the whole mess is ugly, but, similar to a criminal trial, sometimes for the sake of truth and justice, this ugliness needs to be probed and the ugly truth brought to sunlight. that is all i have been trying to do. not one of my edits brought in any falsehood nor removed a relavant and true fact. it is not POV editing that i have been banned from the article (but not Misplaced Pages, like the others), but because I am not considered to be NPOV. well, if that is the case, all i can say is that the truth needs an advocate. don't sacrifice the (supported, factual) truth on the alter of NPOV. r b-j 03:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't begin to see any salient points coming out of this latest message. I've already made it clear that I don't want to be sucked into this damn mess - I was merely performing a check for a friend, to make sure he wasn't about to burn out - and Nick is very close to burning out. One would think that users could be a little understanding.

No new admin needs anything like the measure of hassle he's been getting. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this controversy and argument by the scientific community to take place. It is merely the place for factual and encyclopedic information about said argument to be recorded. These petty squabbles, arguments and what amounts to whining and bitching at those users who are only trying to keep the damn peace are not helping the community at all.

Back to my original point; I can't see any evidence that Nicholas skewed the article to any particular point of view, and as far as I'm concerned, he's done his level best to keep the various parties in this despicable mess happy whilst keeping the article neutral. Each attempt has been thrown back in his face, and I find that more disgusting than anything else. Rob Church 14:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Charpak

Hey rjb, I was doing unrelated stuff, when I fell upon the actual "Charkpak insult" quote. So here's a translation, for your reading enjoyment:

"So I'll let you laugh together with Charpak. If you were a bit more aware of his reputation, maybe you would understand that his nobel prize should never have been given to him. Charpak is retired, he's an aging, bitter man, whose arrogance causes him to be hated by everyone (including his former colleagues). Tell me about just one of his so-called discoveries. He's never done anything really important and he doesn't count in the world of theoretical physics. He's an experimenter. He doesn't know anything about mathematics. Even less about quantum groups. So who is he to jugde the work of the Bogdanovs ?"

PS: this was uttered through a sock puppet.

PPS: I found this on a french forum in which the Bogdanovs state that "the time when we used pseudonyms is long over and we now understand that it was a mistake." That was in November 2004.

Bog. affair

Hi Rbj, thanks for your message. I've written a couple of words on the talk page of the affair. I can't spend half of my time with it right now. Let me hope they will be doing fine. Some of the ideas are interesting. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

B Tracker

Let me introduce you... the B Tracker :) Ze miguel 08:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice to meet another Mennonite

I don't think I've seen another regular editor who is Mennonite. It's nice to know there are others around. Perhaps some day we'll have enough to have a committee or something :-) mennonot 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

anyway, i have to admit that i discovered your existence here at WP from reading some example in the Arbitration help pages. i can't find it now. looks like we both got into some disputed stuff that went to ArbCom. for me it was Bogdanov Affair. anyway, nice to meet you. if you're originally from North America, perhaps we can play the Mennonite game and find someone we both know. i would start with a guy named Merv Horst (the only other Mennonite i know who's been to London).r b-j 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's really funny that you saw my name through arbcom. I had no idea my name was turning up on arbitration pages. After reading your comment I googled Mennonot and arbitration and got 79 results. After some digging I discovered that an edit by me was used as an example on the template that is stuck on people's page's when gathering evidence. After some digging I found the original template. The edit itself was a minor and random one and I've never personally been involved in arbitration. I guess it's completely random that I got used. I guess it's all in the spirit of open souce. :-)

As for the Mennonite game, I don't recognise the name Merv Horst, but I've only been here in London for two years or so. I'm originally from Goshen, Indiana. If you've got Manhattant ties, do you know Nekeisha who is now in Elkhart?mennonot 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I´m still "watching".....

the Bogdanov Affair (i.e. have it on my "watch"-list), and whenever I see that the last edit was not by any of the "well-known" editors (like NicholasTurnbull, Pjacobi, Geni, Rama), well, then I alway check -and revert if neccessary. It´s become a hobby! However, I´m not always on WP ;-), now I have been away for more that 24 hours (whaw!), but rest assured; I ´m keeping the article on my watch-list for the forseeable future. Btw, I read through some of the older, archived "talk", and I must confess it got me screaming with laughter..:-D...and I thought I had seen it all over in the Middle-Eastern aera (where I normally edit). How wrong I was! Regards, Huldra 12:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Instantaneous frequency

Hi, I have written an article on instantaneous phase, as it is derived from the analytic signal and with applications. It seems to me that some of the stuff which now is in the instantaneous frequency article could go into there, and that the latter can be expanded with more stuff on frequency rather than on the phase. What say you? KYN 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitraton committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair case. →Raul654 03:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Electronics engineering and electrical engineering

Could I welcome you to the Wikiproject electronics and thank you for your submissions so far. I hope you will enjoy editing with us. There are already some outstanding tasks on the task list (project page).

What you are proposing is a big job (but worthwhile) and it will take some time. But in the mean time can I refer you to an important discussion taking place on talk:electrical engineering which is attempting to find the best way of dealing with electrical engineering and electronics engineering worldwide. In order that what you propose and the existing articles on what I shall call 'electronics' (ie the subject of the project) are put under the correct category, I feel its important for us to decide on how this material should be categorised. From what you've written so far (Ive only had a very quick look) it seems that your ideas would certainly come within the scope of our project and I think would come under the general (broad) category of electronics engineering judging by the way the discussions are going at the moment. So, as you will be contributing in this area, it would be good for us to know your views on the upcoming segregation of electrical engineering and electronics engineering. Could you reply on talk:electrical engineering in the first instance. THanks--Light current 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Translation of Ciel & Espace article

say, Ze, i ran the translated article through a word processor and corrected a few mispellings, angloized (or americanized) some words (but not all). do you want it? if you want me to email it to you lemme know your address (mine is on my user page). if you want me to leave it somewhere where you can quickly get and delete it, fine. and if you don't want it, fine. say, really thanks for translating that. that effort was worth a lot, i'm sure. r b-j 04:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey r b-j, thanks for the copyedit. YMB has already put the article up on his website at this URL: http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/ciel-et-espace-en.txt. Would you please send him your new version, so that he updates it ? -- Ze miguel 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov cont

Hi there. My edits looked odd because I was trying to repair page-move vandalism without the move button working (due to the target pages, e.g. Bogdanov Affair, existing. What I was up to was trying to clear the target pages (which consisted of redirects) to be able to move the pages back; and then, that failing, to cut-and-paste material from the pages the vandal created to their proper places. The Land 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah I didn't know exactly how sensitive a page it is, and was just trying (not very well, I admit) to deal with the page move vandalism on sight. The Land 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:AZgurney.jpg

This image appears to be incorrectly tagged as it comes from the Arizona Department of Corrections, but is tagged as being a work of the United States federal government. It may have to be deleted. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

what the hell is your problem?

got a hardon for me or something? once there's something worth leaving on my talk page i'll do it... until then stop vandalising my fucking talk page. Rchamberlain 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This might be a little late, but CALM DOWN! WP:CIVIL is a very important policy. --Phroziac _. o º 16:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like both of them need a lesson in civility. Isn't there a rule against blanking criticism on your talk page? — Omegatron 17:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

both, Om? my initial approach to him was totally polite and constructive, yet was totally blown off. he believe himself above any reproach and his editing is anything other that thoughtful and much of the time is clear POV warrioring. please take a look at his contrib history. Phroziac doesn't seem to know who the perp is and who the victim is. r b-j 71.161.209.24 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So you call him a "close-minded egotistical arrogant jerk"? His uncivil behavior gives you license to stop assuming good faith, but it doesn't give you license to be uncivil. — Omegatron 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

strictly speaking, Omegatron, i gave him a choice of how he wanted to be thought of as. but you're right. nonetheless, doesn't it seem rather odd that i was blocked, Rchamberlain was not, and i was given no advanced (or even contemporaneous with the block) contact about the problem, as perceived by Phroziac. the block just appeared out of the blue. if Phroziac had a problem with my civility, he/she could have contacted me about it instead of just picking a target (the wrong one) and shooting. r b-j 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I only saw this because your talk page is still on my watchlist, but blanking criticism on one's talk page is much more uncivil, in my opinion.

Still... be nice.  :-) — Omegatron 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i'm trying. but i'm pretty pissed at Phroziac. first i was pissed at Rchamberlin for obvious POV crapping up the place and for lazy editing (anyone who has 8 page edits to the same article in 1 or 2 minutes is obviously not using the Show preview button and is hitting the Save page after every other keystroke). now, i am convinced that Phroziac is a lazy admin. pick a target, shoot, and don't worry about it. r b-j 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're that RBJ! Welcome to Misplaced Pages.  :-) We've spoken before on comp.dsp a little.

Anyway, yeah, you can't make personal attacks here, or you get blocked, regardless of whether you are in the right. Because making personal attacks is always in the wrong.

When you're pissed, don't act like it; just point out others' bad behavior to admins in neutral language. Then if a "lazy admin" blocks you, he will look bad. (Remember that everything you do here is logged. (But so is everyone else.)) — Omegatron 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you didn't suspect me of being "that RBJ" when we were dealing with some of these signal processing articles??? i know we've talked here before, why else would you be watching my page? because of Bogdanov? anyway, thanks for the welcome, but i've been around here for better than a year. i'd like to do more with signal processing articles, but it is so breathtakingly formidable. some non-EE editors created the fundamental pages and used some horrible notational conventions, that i just don't know where to begin. the FFTW guy is here also. i dunno who else from comp.dsp we'll find here, but i hope a few. r b-j 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeah I don't always pay attention to who I'm talking to. Or how long they've been here. As you've been here since Sept '04, you should know better by now. :-)

Yeah, there's a problem with the pure mathematicians conflicting with the practical shortcutmath engineers. See Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem for a current example. I'm not sure what we should do for this kind of conflict. It kind of has to cover both viewpoints. (But ours is so much easier to use!) — Omegatron 01:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your account is now unblocked

Dear Rbj: After discussion with the blocking administrator, User:Phroziac, I have removed the block on your account on condition that you do not edit User_talk:Rchamberlain in the future; in other words, I am softbanning you from that page from now on, and suggest that you not have anything else to do with that user in order to bring this dispute to a close. Should you violate this softban, your edits will be removed from that page and, if you persist, you will be re-blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. I do hope this is of assistance to you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rbj: Thank you for your response. Now, we've collaborated productively in the past, and I know you to be a most reasonable, helpful, civil and responsible editor. I do regret, however, there are a number of issues which I must now raise with you. You wrote:

i'm giving your soft-ban 24 hours, but i am confonting Rchamberlain with specific issues of arrogant POV edits and his arrogant bad faith, because that is simply what it is. and i have every right to.

I am really sorry to have to do this, but if you violate the soft-ban I will have no choice other than to enforce it; your edits fell foul of WP:NPA, and your actions on User_talk:Rchamberlain amounted to edit warring. In order to bring this debate to a close, I am going to have to enforce this if you are not willing to step away from it voluntarily. Although I appreciate the gesture to maintain it for 24 hours, this is not really a matter of optionality; as for "i have every right to " I am afraid that is not so, as per WP:NPA and WP:NOT, regardless of how this editor has behaved (or misbehaved; indeed, I agree that this editor has also fallen foul of Misplaced Pages policy, and I will deal with him myself in a similar manner). I very much regret to inform you that if you disagree with my enforcement of this ban, your recourse is only via the dispute resolution process (see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution) although I sincerely hope this does not have to come to that. What I would like to ask you to do is tabulate the specific POV and bad faith issues which you take issue with, and I will personally follow them up myself; if you prefer, I could delegate this matter to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee to allow another administrator or editor to provide a second opinion and perform the appropriate action with Rchamberlain. Please tell me your thoughts on this; I look forward to your cooperation, if you would be so kind as to do so. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Harrassing Phroziac

Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Response Answered Your Own Question

The tone of your response made it pretty clear that she was right in believing that you were harrassing her. Like I said before, don't do it. karmafist 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)