Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:05, 20 June 2007

Another one bites the dust.

Bye Misplaced Pages.

I hereby retire. I can't stand the fact that no one actively helps fighting the actions of uneducated editors who make really dumb claims like "heat is the same thing as thermal energy". If the Misplaced Pages will continue to refuse to give experts the editorial control necessary to guard against such errors, then there is really no place for experts at Misplaced Pages. They will leave as I am leaving.

--ScienceApologist 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy to hear this. I agree with you that experts should be given editorial control, but there might be other ways of accomplishing this. You need to join talk. That won't help sway dedicated cranks - that's for ArbCom, I guess - but some people might simply fail to understand why you're doing what you're doing, and might appreciate and be convinced by your explanation. Educate them. Alternately, you can solicit the involvement of other editors such as William M Connelley or myself.Proabivouac 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry to see you go, but fully understand the reasons. I would have left a long time ago (and nearly did so a couple of times) but felt I could not in good conscience abandon the project to the lunatic anti-science POV-pushers. My rationale is that as long as people are going to continue using this thing, I have a responsibility to try and make it conform to reality. But when all you get for your trouble is a kick in the teeth it's hard to continue. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I too say, don't go William M. Connolley 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We've got a long row to hoe here, and it'll much tougher without your help. It's frustrating and time-consuming working on Misplaced Pages, but I think it is in the end worthwhile, and fun to boot. I hope you reconsider, or at least return after a nerve-soothing vacation at the beach. --Art Carlson 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You Will Be Missed

Your abilities in all things WP:V, your talents in WP:SPADE, and your crystal-tipped logic will be sorely missed around here. Were it not for your clearly stated rationale for retirement, I would be begging you, for the good of Misplaced Pages, to stay until the Paranormal arbitration is finished. Antelan 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Nevermind, I'm going to beg anyway. Antelan 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wifflebat award

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		I'm awarding you this Wiki Wiffle bat for having shown exceptional skill in the area(s) of logic, rationality, dispute resolution/mediation particularly in the face of flames and general animosity. Wikidudeman 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But...

• "No one actively helps fighting" because edit warring is not constructive. I'm sure that all editors would agree with the aims of User:Ed Poor who started the Harmonious editing club.
• "uneducated editors" must be referring to someone like myself, whom ScienceApologist has called "incompetent" "close-minded ignorance", "inordinate ignorance", "nonscientist layman", "Basic ignorance".
• ... together with "dumb claims", is an example of both "Judgmental tone" and "Belittling contributors" as outlined in the official Wiki policy on Civility
• But I agree with ScienceApologist, .. "heat is not the same things as thermal energy". Except that this was not the point. The issue was whether to merge to subjects; perhaps someone considered them related areas of thermodynamics?
• "there is really no place for experts at Misplaced Pages", on the contrary, there is no place for those who resort to personal attacks, edit warring, and need special help from administrators.
• I reckon he'll be back within a week.--Iantresman 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your willful mischaracterization of my comments. I request your withdrawal of the abusive bulletpoint that micharacterizes and misquotes from my statement. Antelan 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, no mischaracterization of your statement was intended. I have edited the statement accordingly. I have found from personal experience that ScienceApologist has not used WP:V for his own statements, ignored peer-reviewed citations when it suits him, or even claimed that he does not require citations; his personal attacks do not justify WP:SPADE, and I'm sure I can provide examples of flawed logic. That's not see that he did not use them correctly at all. --Iantresman 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When people talk about Babe Ruth's brilliant batting, they are probably referring to his home runs, not to the times when he struck out. Antelan 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• If Babe Ruth had been uncivil to the match officials, tried to bat for the 4th time when it wasn't his go, called the referee "uneducated and made dumb claims", or belittled the second team... then his batting average would have been of secondary importance, and you might not even want him on your side. --Iantresman 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Heat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)