Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 27 December 2007

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Nondistinguished archive /Archive 8

Censorship

I do not know of any Wiki rule or policy that gives one editor the right to censor the contribution of another editor. If you have a problem with the contribution I am trying to make to the Clairvoyance article, please intelligently and articulately communicate your concerns on my Talk page. Simply clicking on Undo, as you have done before, is not science. It is censorship. If it continues I will have to commence DR action. Best wishes.RAmesbury (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC January meetup

Sezz Medi certainly seems like a decent place. Is it the type of back room that we would have to reserve in advance? In case you want any more ideas, I'm going to apologize in advance for insulting your knowledge of the neighborhood and point you to the Wikitravel page on the Upper West Side. Also, are there any other non-restaurant activities/places on the Upper West Side that people might be interested in visiting? Another thing, I'm going to be mostly off-wiki on a trip for the next week or two, so I'm going to leave some instructions shortly at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/NYC on how to send out the invites if I don't get back by December 1 or so. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait till a week or two before to get a good estimate of attendance at the restaurant. By all means go ahead with the possibility of a tour at AMNH (and I'm a big fan of what Tyson has done with the Hayden) or the Columbia Libraries.--Pharos (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My only concern would be that last time very few people (three of us) came to the 'pre-meetup', though this may only be because it was outdoors (the Brooklyn Botanic Garden) and the weather was borderline. I just wouldn't want to disappoint any people who arranged a special tour if the turnout was low.--Pharos (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any updates on this front? I'm going to be sending out the mass-invites very soon.--Pharos 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Yea, verily, forgive me; for I have taken the bait. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Why won't they let you become one? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you? Are you pushing the opposite or searching for balance? P.S. Should I have responded here or on my page? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How do 'you' determine what a Psuedoscience is how do you handle the transition stage that some Pseudosciences will undergo towards becoming a science? Are acupuncture and chiropractic pseudosciences? --Anthon01 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

If you need some support putting the rational view on pseudoscience articles then I'm always willing to help. Nick mallory (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Willo'-the wisp vs Ghost light

The former is found in swampy lands, while the latter is found in places that are not swampy at all. The Marfa Lights are found in a desert environment. Swamp gas was used as a explain all panacea by the US govt. and military for nearly everything paranormal until strange things were reported in space, and other places that are not swampy at all. One theory about some Ghostlights are that they're some kind of electrical discharge similar to ball lightning, generated by quake faults running through piezoelectric minerals, such as quartz and quartzite. 65.163.112.205 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of speculation from cold fusion

Thanks for removing all of that speculative nonsense from cold fusion. Would you mind looking over hydrino theory and Randell Mills? These two are about a particular form of transcendent pseudoscience, which unfortunately seems to have at least one lackey - User:Pcarbonn, who is also very active on cold fusion. I've been trying to hold the line, but another set of hands might help. Michaelbusch 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch

I see you've taken him under your wing. I told him that you are wonderful. Hopefully you can shepherd him through any struggles so that he does not succumb to Wikifrustration. All my best. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hello! What exactly do you see as anti-science about me? I don't feel this is true and would like to clear up any misconceptions. Thanks, --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your voting comment. I have posted a response -- Manning (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force GA hold

Thank you for letting us know about your concerns. I have responded to your message on the GAN talk page. Regards, EyeSerene 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

HM

Apologies for incorrectly intertwining our respective issues with the ArbCom's decisions. Your point regarding accomodationism is well taken. Antelan 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry I didn't show Assume Good Faith with your repeated redirection of Ghost light without consensus. I don't quite follow how WP:AGF can be used as rational for redirection of a page, but I'm going to stay out of the page. I hope the issue is resolved in a civilized manner. -JWGreen (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro, Re.:Will-o'-the-wisp

The intro does NOT adequately explain why is that there is NO swampy lands where Ghostlights are seen. The Marfa Lights are seen in a desert area, as is a similar light in IRAN, a desert country. This may cause people to believe that Misplaced Pages does'nt know the difference between a ghostlight and a Will-o'-the-wisp. Is Marfa, Texas and Iran swampy ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do You....

...live near a (any) area(s) that has one or more in it ? I am currently in a location that has four of these things near me. The lights are at Gurdon, Arkansas, Marfa, Texas, Crosset, Arkansas, and there is another one in Texas, and I've got word of one in the Missouri "Bootheel". Would it be "Original Research" to go out and see these "ghostlights" and place info obtained on here ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

Thanks for the note (and apologies for the late reply; I don't Wiki much at the weekend). The consensus at WP:GAR seems to be for a renomination, so if that continues, once the process there has run its course I'll renom if noone else gets there first. All the best, EyeSerene 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you - there are elements of WP:POINT (although maybe not WP:REDFLAG) going on here. I think I can see where he's coming from (I've got a Physics background too), but I also think in the context of the article his objection is not as important as he believes it is. I'll comment in a similar vein elsewhere; maybe we can get some compromise before this gets out of hand. EyeSerene 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup updates?

I don't mean to pester you by posting this again, but do you have any updates on Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#Other possibilities? It's about thirty days from now, and if we're planning anything else, it would be best if we informed people about it as far in advance as possible (but if it'll take a week or two more to schedule, that's fine also). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadbeater and Besant

You might want to have a look at what happened to the Charles Webster Leadbeater article as well. Ditto for this on the Annie Besant article. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reported RAmesbury for making changes for which payment was offered on Anti-Relativity.com: . I thought you might be interested. Antelan 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch - again

Thanks for trying to intervene in the disruptions to Talk:Quackwatch, but I hope you dont mind my reminding you that such discussions are best taken to another forum. You might also want to contribute to Talk:Quackwatch#Continued_disruption_of_talk_page or WP:ANI#Quackwatch_talk_page, which are both related. Additionally, an RFC/U might be appropriate at this point. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, another forum is in use. Not on the disruption, but related: Misplaced Pages:RSN#Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all-out baiting you. WP:HARASS and WP:NPA probably apply too. I appreciate your keeping cool in spite of it all. Probably the best thing is to WP:DNFTT. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take a break from Quackwatch. They're obviously getting to you, and you're starting to respond in a fashion to similar to their own. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on cold fusion

Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Let's all work together and stop the edit warring at Quackwatch. It is delicate right now and we are trying very hard to reach a consensus after long debate. I hope that you can help be part of the solution and refrain from future edit wars. Thanks! -- Levine2112 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy AGAIN

Thanks for the help out. People are starting to get afraid of standing up to these nutjobs. Many of the SPOV admins are running scared after what happened to Adam Cuerden. I'm not sure how long we can fight without the help of truly neutral admins. OrangeMarlin 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I have a question for you about the nature of plausibility over at Talk:Homeopathy#Plausibility. Curious Blue (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

I've already sought advice on the situation with Levine2112. Best not to accuse anyone of it at all. Even if you're absolutely sure, only the most blatant cases will ever get through WP:SSP (where an editor is clearly doing nothing at all other than just taking another editor's side). While you could probably convince others that these editors have been recruited to help Levine, and are being told what to say and when, it still isn't enough for WP:SSP. Best to take treat it as a behavioral issue. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell, et al.

I suggest you provide diffs, and at least a few for each editor. Something like you did for User_talk:Levine2112/archive5#Please_use_care_when_declaring_.22harassment.22 Levine would probably be enough. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"appeal for help"

You asked at my talk about "where I received appeal for help"; it wasn't addressed to me personally, it was a note someone posted in some public place, e.g. a project talk page. At the time, I was unfamiliar with QW, you (although I think I've noticed your edits in the past), Levine2112, etc, so I didn't recognize any names and don't recall any. Probably it was the same place that Arthur Rubin heard about it, he's a mathematician also. I'll try to find it, it's a fair question. Pete St.John (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the RFC, which is a section in the QW:talk page itself. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page, and I replied, for convenience reproduced here:

You obviously have a problem with me

But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. However, this is Misplaced Pages and criticisms of people's ideas and attempts happen all the time. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. I note that you had no way of knowing that the consensus was fake as you did not know the personalities or the sides involved at the time. You seem to make a singular point that people should be aware that QW is not peer-reviewed because QW discusses peer-review itself: however, such a criticism is not good for Misplaced Pages unless it can be directly sourced. I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot or some other blog-forum. That seems to fly in the face of all sourcing conventions at Misplaced Pages You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that you make accusations (veiled or otherwise) faster than I can address them. This is the fastest-paced controversy I've been in so far, although others have had bad days.

1. Citing a reference for my claim that you accused me of tendentious editting. I overgeneralized the word; using it to characterize your characterization of me. So I'm trying to go through QW talk to piece together specifics, then explain myself at the ANI with them. One might note, that "I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot" could be construed as implying my contribution was contrary to wiki policy, an example of what I overgeneralized as "tendentious" (when really I was thinking "contentious", btw). You may have had a good point there.

2. Citing a reference to the "request for help" I mentioned. It's this RFC. You may notice that my first edit to QW:talk was in the section labelled "A user has requested...".

3. Are you accusing me of being an alt-med-POV pusher?

4. I do, in fact, know why I have problems with you. (By knowledge I refer to sporadic proximate causes, in your editting, which I am working to document; I only have hypotheses about your philosophy or raison detre). I'm working on documenting it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your replies at my user space. Pete St.John (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudoscience

There is a clear consensus on the talk page; see the section Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Awaiting_wording_that_justifies_classification_here. On December 4th I suggested that we wait a week and then archive. There was general agreement. It's 12 days later. Hgilbert (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

You probably forgot. Remember the series of edits that CrohnieGal started? This was discussed . Please revert your last edit. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The follwoing are excerpts from . CrohnieGal wrote, Why not just remove all of the Mission Statement? It's really not that important. Along with the removal of the Mission Statement remove the names of those who are supposed to be keeping watch over articles. IMHO, all of this is unnecessary, the title Mission and scope. If that is removed then the warring hopefully will stop, at least about this. --CrohnieGal 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, I think that's an idea worth considering. Anthon01 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your wrote, I'm in favor of anything that makes this article have less text at this point. ScienceApologist 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)"

Antelan wrote, Crohnie I think you've got a great point. Antelan 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is just after his talk page edit. Please note he removed all mention of the advisors. You have now replaced those advisors by putting them in another section of the article. Please revert the edit. Anthon01 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01, on the talk page after my edit you stated, "I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text." Why are you speaking so aggressively to SA if you think this? I was the one who made the edit, and you don't see me vigorously defending it. These folks are trying to improve the article, just as I am. It will take time, but a good article will result. Antelan 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? How I am suppose to know that you are not vigorously defending the edit and what difference does it make whether you are defending it or not? I am not speaking aggressively. I'm simply reminding him of the agreement that he was a party to, understanding it was a major point of contention in the edit war that has been going on. Anthon01 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Baumgardner

I just did a citation count on John Baumgardner and was quite startled at the results. He could have had a very good conventional career. I hadn't realised that--what a pity he got diverted into nonsense. DGG (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour

This is really coming out well. So, the tour would be of the astrophysics division? Theoretically, Wikipedians would best connect to physical archives and technology infrastructure, but it would probably be best in general to just go for whatever is most interesting; and I'm really ignorant of what else you might have in the back rooms of the astrophysics division, so use your best judgment. One thing I personally always wanted to see was the AMNH shelves of fossils and other specimens, but I realize that would be in a different division.

Your suggested start time seems good to me; noon might be more attractive to people than 11 AM — also we should give some thought to the ending-time, keeping in mind we have to get to Columbia by 2:30.

The sooner we can post a specific starting time and meet-up point (nevermind the specifics of what we see on the tour), the sooner we can collect signatures — I'll put a special section on the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC page for the museum RSVPs. Thanks for all your work on this.--Pharos (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am a Field Associate in Invertebrate Zoology, and a volunteer in (invertebrate) Paleontology, at AMNH. I live not very far away from AMNH. I can get 5 people in to the Museum for free if that is helpful, and can also get 5 free tickets to a special exhibit or whatever. However I don't think I can manage to get people behind the scenes in the fossil department on a weekend, because the person I work for is not there on a Sunday. But I could maybe ask around just in case another staff member might be up for it. Anyway, I am willing to help out in whatever way I can easily manage. Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I know a lot more about living mollusks than I do about fossil ones by the way. I will keep in touch and let you know if it seems I can get any behind the scenes access for that Sunday. It would help if I knew roughly how many people it might be. Invertzoo (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shelves of living mollusks would be fun, too. Really, I think I would find it interesting to see any of the back rooms with giant rows of shelves storing various types of specimens (biological, mineralogical etc.) — or at least this is my cherished mental image of the behind-the-scenes of a natural history museum. As to attendance, I would plan for about 10 at this point, but when we set up the RSVPs we should get something more accurate.--Pharos (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup

Hi,

I came across the NYC meetup link in the top section of a wikipedia page. I am from India but I am currently in New York City and would be here till the end of Jan. I am interested in attending the meetup. But I have never attended any wikipedia meetup. So, I am not really sure about the agenda of such meetups. Whether the meetups are more local in nature(nyc projects) or there are discussions on general wikipedia topics. I did see someone mentioning a talk on history of wikipedia on the meetup page. Gaurav1146 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets on the astrology page

Hey, so... someone, probably Rumbird or one of his cronies, seems to be using sock puppets on the astrology page in order to offset the consensus on the disputed paragraph in the opening. User:SciFiApostle appears to be the first one that was set up, probably in a lame attempt to mock your user name, and now the latest is this one User:Random-chess. The contribution history on both clearly shows that there is sock puppetry going on here. Do you want to do anything about this, or do we just have to endure the never ending edit wars? I'm sorry that many of the astrologers who end up on wikipedia are crazies. I've had to do battle with a few of them myself in the past, and I kind of lost interest in Misplaced Pages for a while as a result of it. We're not all crazy though, and I appreciate the work you have been doing on the astrology page to keep it 'on the level', so to speak. So, keep up the good work. --Chris Brennan (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not really sure if Rumbird is the ringleader at this point. User 'Budfin' appears to be in on the latest round of reverts to that section of the article, and a new sock puppet named 'Ali the Munificent' appears to have been created recently as well. Without being able to identify who the ringleader is it is hard to launch a formal complaint. --Chris Brennan (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Close to arbcom violation

SA: I think that Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Titles, especially the “ulterior agendas” remark, is very close to violating Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted, please be more careful. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And User:Martinphi of course gets a free pass for his disruption in spite of his arbcom restrictions. Nonetheless, SA, you should keep to the straight and narrow both because it's the right thing to do and because you don't want to give "them" ammunition. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See responses on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed..

Thank you for the barnstar, what I nice surprise it was to see it there. I really appreciate it that people have realized I was trying to help everyone and the article. I now will try to mend some fences. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationists and Homeopaths

You're one of the few editors that I've noticed that is like me, editing the bullshit out of Creationist and Alternative medicine articles. I've been working to getting Herpes zoster to FA, and I've noticed 2-4 faith healers (oops I mean alternative medicine types) who are trying to get their POV faith-based cruft into the article. The virologists editing the article aren't noticing them, because they usually stay away from the crap that we deal with. Do you mind helping keep the cruft out? You don't have to be an expert viruses, just an expert in the faith-healer objectives--you know, don't take medications, just drink monkey piss and you'll be perfect. OrangeMarlin 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH Tour

I am not going to be there for it, thanks though. See you at the meet! michfan2123 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey ScienceApologist, I am not interested in the AMNH tour so much, but the CU library tour was tantalizing... what are the odds of that happening still? • Freechild'sup? 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to find out if I can get anyone behind the scenes in "my" sections of AMNH. As far as I can tell, the paleontology section will not be a possibility because it seems that no senior staff members will be in on that Sunday to "sign off" on it. I will try for invertebrate zoology, but that may well be the same problem. (Of course if there is anything in the public parts of the museum I can talk people through I will do so, but it could be that the astronomy stuff will take up all of the time available.) In any case if you ScienceApologist have any suggestions I will be glad to consider them. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am so psyched about this. AMNH & Hayden have been one of my loves since I was in grade school, and I visited them the first time in the 1950s. However, I am desolated about the destruction of the old Hayden Planetarium from 1935. It was a wonderful and beautiful building, and I hated to see it replaced by something so high tech. It's harder to find references to the Hayden now, since it seems overshadowed by Rose. Sorry if you all feel differently, but I have a thing for old buildings. Thanks so much for all this work in setting it up. — Becksguy (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I am just popping in to wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy holiday! May 2008 bring everyone a wonderful year. Happy editing! --CrohnieGal 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the good guys stand up

I hope you got a chance to read what Guy said here. Sometimes it's worth the effort. OrangeMarlin 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a personal essay on why the panel is wrong by a cold fusion advocate, and needs cleaning up. Can you help? Guy (Help!) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with science...

		The Original Barnstar
		And so it was spoken that "...The null hypothesis was rejected; SA is richly deserving of a Barnstar...", and behold, a barnstar fell from the heavens! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Force

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Force you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I have just begun the review of the article, it may take a little while to completely finish. SriMesh | talk 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Force article

Sure, I'd be glad to help on the force article, but I may not be able to get around to anything these next week as I am pretty busy, I'll just do what I can. For the free body diagram on the article, I have made a quick beta, just tell me what you think of it and what else needs to be done: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Beta_of_Freebodydiagram2_pn.png Also, we probably should fix the the Free body diagram article as everything there is labled as Weight. -- penubag  02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Because every time a fringe view gets undue weight the wiki dies a little. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hint: the answer is both

Which is more annoying/disruptive: Inventing new physics terms ("thermodynamic history") or abusing difficult to understand physics concepts ("quantum" anything)? Antelan 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Regardless of what you think of the edits of others, the incivil language used in this edit and its summary are not acceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His comments were an accurate description. The concepts Whig is trying to push are indeed "garbage" and "drivel." No need to sugar-coat it; to do so might imply that those concepts have a tiny shred of credibility, which they do not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

lol tell that to the ArbComm--feline1 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed uncivil to label another's editor's edits as "garbage" and "drivel". Obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's outright garbage and drivel you just wrote, Dlabtot. Sometimes people write garbage and drivel. I myself have done it. Have I just now been uncivil to myself? God, I think sometimes the civility plea is so lame! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To answer your question, yes, it is rude and uncivil to purposely repeat rude and uncivil behavior, in a conscious effort to offend and annoy others. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not consciously trying to offend or annoy. In fact, I believe what I'm trying to do is describe. Is civility now purely in the eye of the beholder? I thought intent was important. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really incivil to call a spade a spade... -- RG 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not in any way uncivil to mercilessly edit fringe viewpoints inserted into an article. It is not in any way uncivil to demonstrate why they are fringe theories and in what way they contradict basic principles of science. Misplaced Pages policies are pretty clear, however, about insulting people or their edits. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but this is the first I heard that we aren't allowed to "insult" people's edits. I mean, sometimes people make bad edits. Am I simply not supposed to talk about it? Or am I supposed to lie and say that they aren't bad when they bring them up on the talkpage? Seriously, are we going to resort to policing civility that carefully? Funny, I thought that Misplaced Pages was not censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for passing Europa's GA

But Sandy Georgia has commented on the talk page that the pass was incomplete. Not sure what needs to be done so if you could connect with her on the issue, I'd appreciate it. Once again, thank you very much! Serendious 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)