Page Vandalised 5 Times

   Discussion Conventions

Aeon is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion, Thanks.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Misplaced Pages:Civility

• NOTE: Comments expressed on this talk page do not reflect the ideas or beliefs of Aeon.
• NOTE: All Anon unsigned comments are removed on sight.
• NOTE: This page is Auto-Archived by Werndabot.
• NOTE: If you are here to ask a question about why I have moved Userboxes please see WP:GUS

AMA Help

Thanks for taking the time to investigate my AMA request with ScienceApologist. I appreciate your suggestion of mediation with him, but we've been through it before, and I'm not convinced of its effectiveness.

I saw ScienceApologist reply. He is quite right that I like to describe "ideas opposed to the scientific mainstream", but he is wrong to suggest that this has anything to do with "What Misplaced Pages is not)". Misplaced Pages is quite inclusive.

I also note that ScienceApologist suggests that I try to include fringe ideas as fact... this is utter garbage, and am well aware of mispresentation, and will provide verifiable citations as needed.

As for "hiding behind policy", I think this is another way of acknowledging that I abide by policy.

Thanks again for your time Aeon. --Iantresman 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

%%%%

Yes thanks, I've tried both Article RfC, Third Opinion and Arbitration. I think that one of the problems is that describing fringe material will always be in the minority, and most editors are not necessarily sympathetic. A good example is the Wolf Effect, described as a "new redshift mechanism", but you'd never know by reading the article on Redshift because most astronomers have never heard of it... yet it isn't an article on "astronomical" redshift. --Iantresman 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

%%%%

• You can find our previous Mediation Cabal session here.
• And my previous Arbitration case is here

To summarise, I feel that ScienceApologist is misrepresenting minority views, by personally judging that they are not notable, or worse, pseudoscientific. The result is that certain articles on science, unlike most other articles, lack nearly any criticism, or "non-mainstream" views. For example, the article on Redshift has next to nothing on alternative views, despite extensive peer reviewed citations. --Iantresman 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

%%%%%

I've started a few requests for comments. While it can be argued that the rightful consensus is achieved, I am not sure that is correct if it is at the expense of NPOV's first statement: "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias" (My emphasis)

RfC: Redshift | Tired Light | Galaxy rotation problem --Iantresman 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Vandal of Sorts.

Aeon, I have a slight hunch that a local politician may have attempted to use Misplaced Pages for his own political gain. I know this isn't exactly vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the protocol in place for this situation. The user in question is Stampedem. The contributions in question have to do with the Eliot Shapleigh, and Dee Margo articles. These two men are both candidates for a seat in the Texas Senate, and as you can imagine, this sort of conduct has arrisen. I reverted some of the changes this user made too the Shapleigh article, and am currently researching the portions of his/her contributions I did not revert. I will document my findings on any other revert on the article's talk page. I also left a message on their talk page on the topic. Getting to the Margo article, what raises concern is that not all the contents of the article are exactly true. I have already tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Not verified}}, and will be going through it over the next couple of days to check the facts. Also, although the author attacked the Shapleigh article with a sort of smear-campaign-style contribution, only a sentence of the Margo article deals with the upcoming election. In all honesty, Margo is somewhat of an unnotable person--although accomplished, his most notable quality is that he is running for a position as Texas senator. Hence, I also marked the article with {{Importance}}. I need to know how to attain the IP of a user, that way, I may run a trace to see if this user is indeed who I think they are. Please, if you have a moment, look into this situation. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Somnabot 22:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an update: I am having considerable difficulties figuring out how to deal with this problem. Any adition to the article seems to soon be reverted by the user mentioned above. Somnabot 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

CVU

Wow. That's a bit ridiculous. =) alphaChimp 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

CVU Page

Hey I saw it up for deletion earlier today, funny stuff eh? Unless you meant something else by that talk message and I'm very clueless. Canadian-Bacon 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's back up for deletion again, what is this? Thanks for letting me know. Canadian-Bacon 04:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Query about RfC

Greetings; I was wondering how one goes about getting a conduct RfC going. I'm writing you because of a recent AfD vote on Danny Yee, in which you agreed that the nomination (by User:Kmaguir1 was in bad faith. On bell hooks, you'll know that (1) editors have tried to work with User:Kmaguir1, but (2) he doesn't know how to play well with others. Evidence for (1): I took one of his paragraphs and revised part of it in a NPOV and kept it in the article, rather than simply blanket removing his changes. I also improved his criticism section at Judith Butler. All well and good. But meanwhile, (2), he continues to insert the same criticism paragraph on bell hooks day after day, despite the fact that he has gotten no consensus for it, various editors delete it on sight, and the first third of it is completely redundant, since the version I edited is in the article. So, we have someone who repeatedly ignores WP:CONSENSUS. I think many editors agree that this user is disruptive. My question is whether an RfC is appropriate in such a case, or whether there is another avenue. I've been editing for about six months, but I haven't run into much of this before. Thanks for any pointers.--Anthony Krupp 13:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Need to run something by you.

Have either of the disputants provided links to the formal Mediation and Arbitration cases? I'd think it would be wise of us to look over them both in detail. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Message for Aeon

Hey man. Listen, I know you're probably upset that the CVU was deleted. But ultimately, it was the right thing to do. It was not the easy thing to do, and it was not the popular thing to do. But it was the right thing to do. And I hope you will understand that someday. Until then, I wish you peace and love, and please keep up the good fight against vandalism. At the end of the day, we're on the same team.

Dr Chatterjee 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Defcom

Ok, it should work now. I have no idea what happened. Yanksox 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc moved it per GUS, and said someone could adopt it. So, I figured what the hay. Yanksox 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to need help in fixing all the links, do you think you can help out? The Wiki programming is acting funny for me right now. The descriptions page is also acting wacky. Yanksox 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you may be right. I've almost solved all of it, just need to userfy most of it. Yanksox 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was going to use AWB to fix the links. Do you want me not to do that? Yanksox 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything right now considering this is contested, Doc really needs to weigh in. Yanksox 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Un-Esperanzian colour

It is? Why wasn't I informed? In my opinion, in those large quantities, it's really garish and off-putting, not something we want for our main page. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA information

Vicente Vicente and 68.250.184.204 appear to be the same person, as demonstrated here. Each has vandalised the alumni list for Ohio State mercilessly. The comments included on the history page suggest that most of the vandalism is attributable to one person. Rkevins82 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism Dispute

I repeatedly said that if anyone has a legitimate concerns that they raise the issues here on a case-by-case basis. Psychohistorian refused. He demands verification for facts that no one seriously questions. Also:

• He claims an article is "unsorced" that already has over 100+ ref tags. The George W. Bush page, the most disputed page here, only has 54 or so cites. The accuser refuses serious discussion, other than to demand MORE citations.
• He insists that I personally provide "countless citations," which is not humanly possible, or let him delete large swatches of text. Then he trolls this site seeking admins to help him with the above.
• His views on citation are so extreme that even if a fact is sourced, but the source page is taken down, he claims it is therefore unsourced and presumed unverifiable. Yakuman 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must ask you not to participate in any issues concerning me, due to a conflict of interest. I just discovered that you are part of something called a "cabal." I explained on my talk page why I believe this group lacks civility, good faith and credibility.
1.) People associated with this group recently blitzed me with threats and spurious accusations. My talk page tells the story. Not only was I browbeaten for what I did not do, I was permitted no reasonable defense. I do not wish to risk repeating this situation.
2.) Also, a "cabal" is the online equivalent of a star chamber. You may claim that the name is merely a joke, but my point stands.
3.) Nothing here should be interpreted as denying PH his rights. I simply ask that this "cabal" leave me alone. If he wants to find an "advocate" outside of this group, I'm willing to communicate with that person. My concerns here have nothing to do with him or the article under discussion. Yakuman 05:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)(cc to my talk page)

Jorcoga again

Hi Aeon, I've noticed you haven't been replying to my posts. By now, the answers to your questions have been archived, so I'll tell you again that I want a banner with black & red. Have a good break.  Jorcoga  11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My user page

I'm rather ambivalent towards the CVU, as a matter of fact, I don't really mind if it gets deleted. But, having bad admins like drini running around who couldn't care less about policy is a terrible thing for Misplaced Pages. So, we need to remove Drini. ShortJason 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)