Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anastrophe (talk | contribs) at 08:25, 2 January 2008 (→reply: slight mods to enhance readability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Energy development, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Misplaced Pages articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

for assistance

please click the "help" button to the left, and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies before attacking a fellow editor again. i will direct you most pointedly to the following, which appears on the page each time you click the "edit this page" link:

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

your expertise or lack thereof does not trump wikipedia guidelines or policy. if you cannot submit material that conforms to wikipedia's requirement for WP:RS citations, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV - just for starters - then you can expect continued reversion of your additions. it's nothing personal. i work under the exact same constraints as you do. when i see unsourced commentary added to an article, i revert it. anything less means letting any jackass on the net make things up and expect others to blindly accept it. and please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes. Anastrophe (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

addendum: in your screed on my talk page, you claimed "You obviously did NOT read most of what I posted, which was loaded with internal Misplaced Pages references and external citation/hyperlinks." i don't know where you come up with an idea like that - there was not even a single external reference in any of the material you added. not one! internal wikipedia references are meaningless - per policy - (and basic logic) wikipedia cannot be a reliable source for information on wikipedia. again, please familiarize yourself with the most basic WP policies regarding verifiability, neutral-point-of-view, and reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to Passive Solar design

Are you the same author as the person with ISP address 71.51.68.228 who made changes to this site?

Dymonite (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

reply

you've demanded an exacting reply, so i'll happily do so, in detail. below are your most recent messages to me. i have added my replies in inline italics like this.

_________________________________________________________________

In reviewing the fine detail of "Energy development" it is obvious that 98% of the Pro and Con bullet points have NO EXTERNAL CITATIONS at all. Perhaps a quarter of them were entered by uninformed people who are obviously clueless about the unverifiable (false) energy science that they casually refer to.

I DEMAND TO KNOW WHY YOU DO NOT APPLY THE EXACT SAME CITATION REQUIREMENT CRITERIA AND DELETE ALL OF THEM ? ? ?

first off, yelling (typing in all-caps and boldifying) will not get your point across any better. in fact, it works against a productive discussion. i don't like being yelled at, and the yelling typifies someone who is not in control of their emotions. i'd suggest that you calm down.

to your point. correct, most of the material lacks citations. most of the material predates my first visiting the article in question. there are more than a million articles on the english wikipedia. i cannot fix them all, nor can i even address with expertise but a fraction of them. but what i *can* do is prevent the inclusion of *more* unsourced material into the encyclopedia. your argument can be turned around easily and emphatically: you are suggesting that because unsourced crap exists in wikipedia, it's therefore okay to add more unsourced crap to wikipedia. note, there's no value judgement in calling it "crap" - so long as it is unsourced, it is unreliable, and therefore crap, whether or not it is objectively true or accurate. adding more unsourced material to wikipedia makes wikipedia worse. the fundamental policy is that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". i cannot verify the material if there are no citations present.

How is it that Misplaced Pages ENCOURAGES non-subject-matter experts to post unthruths and incomplete misleading material, but boldly deletes input from a recognized subject matter expert, without any type of peer review by people who are verifiably famaliar with the material ?

it's nice that you claim that you are an expert. since wikipedia is anonymous, i have no way to verify whether that's a fact. are you expecting me to take your word for it? if you are an expert - perhaps an academic - then you must be familiar with how to properly cite material. perhaps you're not familiar with how to do so within the context of wikipedia editing. that's fine. you should, therefore, visit the 'help' link to the left, and educate yourself on the specifics. 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' - i'm sure you've heard that before. it applies here as well.

the peer review of wikipedia is your fellow editors. if you cannot back up your additions with verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources, then you fail the peer review. it's simple. it works. it's what's making wikipedia better day by day.

Your inconsistent illogic is dazzling beyond belief!

With irrational thinking like that, how did Misplaced Pages ever become popular?

attacking the person, rather than the issue, accomplishes nothing.

Escientist (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spectacular! Once again you did the same arrogant thing. You demanded that I cite my references and delete my work.

yes, that's correct, though i would dispute who is acting arrogantly. you are anonymous on wikipedia, just as am i. i have no way of knowing whether your expertise is real or imagined. without reliably cited references, you only damage your credibility as an expert.

Instead of taking the time to be specific or helful to a generous subject matter expert (who is not a Misplaced Pages guru), you keep doing things you know will drive people like me away, presumably so non-subject-matter new comers can feel a false sense of self worth.

more personal attacks. you've thus far not asked for help - only made rash demands, and shouted in all-caps. furthermore, there is the helpful 'help' button to the left, where any newcomer - arrogant expert or bashful amateur - may learn how to do things. it is not my direct responsibility to help you, if you won't take the most basic steps to help yourself.

I provided excellent reliable citations - Have you ever seen a Financial Times? And yet once again you did an indiscriminate block REDO, without reading what I laborously donated to the world for free.

correction: there was nothing indiscriminate in my reversion of your edits. yes, you listed reliable sources - *that did not support the text you used them as sources for*. i read them carefully. you misrepresented them. more below. my reversion was 100% appropriate, you cannot make a claim in the article then cite a source that doesn't match the claim!

MISCOMMUNICATING WITH ANASTROPHE IS A CASTATROPHE!

more ad hominem, and misspelled to boot. very tedious.

I now must demand that you tell me specifically why you block deleted this well-cited content:

"Even with the most-optimistic energy return on investment claims, in order to use 100% solar energy to grow corn and produce ethanol (fueling machinery with ethanol, distilling with heat from burning crop residues, using NO fossil fuels at all), the consumption of ethanol to replace only the current U.S. petroleum use would require three quarters of all the cultivated land on the face of the Earth. "

i did not revert the above. i edited it to remove the all-caps and excess boldify (per standard WP style guidelines). i converted the bare URL to a proper inline citation, in hopes that you might review it and use it as a guide. regrettably, in your haste, you merely added back the original, so the section is listed twice now. perhaps you'll be kind enough to remove your re-addition of this section.

"The American $0.51 USD per U.S. gallon subsidy for producing ethanol from corn, has diverted land from food, reduced corn expoerts, and it caused the price of food-staple corn-based food products to triple in Mexico in January 2007. United nations officials called the U.S. ethanol-from-food subsidy a "Crime against Humanity". "

the cbsnews reference clearly states that "an outside expert advising the U.N." made the claim that the subsidy was a 'crime against humanity' - you however state that "United nations officials" made the claim. that's a misrepresentation of the source.

"The Financial Times has been especially critical of the counterproductive $7-billion-USD subsidy, 700%-increase in U.S. national biolfuel production biofuel strategy."

FT has not been "especially critical", it is the organization the article is about that was critical. you are misrepresenting the source. had you said that the OECD was especially critical, this one might have stood.

"There is a long list of reasons why even non-food-based cellulosic ethanol cannot solve our energy crisis or global warming problems."

i did not revert this. this is new material you've just added.

Some of the rest of what I edited was corrections to previously-overlooked typographical and gramatical errors. Must I cite my references for these also? How absurd!

you introduced a number of typos. i saw no corrections to typos in your edits. in fact, there's new typos introduced in your most recent edits.

I formally asked you to help me escalate this issue to someone, or a committee, who can rule on these matters. YOU REFUSED MY REQUEST.

i did not refuse your request; i did not address it at all. correction, i did address it: i advised you to click on the 'help' button on the left. you need to start there. it's there to help you.

You said it is your job to do these things - WHAT IS YOUR JOB? What gives you the authority to indiscriminately delete high-quality, verifiable, expert-source content?

nowhere have i said "it is job". perhaps you're misconstruing my statement that "i work under the exact same constraints as you do.". by that i mean that in this anonymous medium, we are peers. there are no special privileges for experts, no special handling for the retarded. edits must stand the test of wikipedia policy and the glaring inspection of our fellow editors. you are, however, again misrepresenting your contributions. thus far they have been at best of average quality, they have not, for the most part, been verifiable, and your expertise is impossible to discern, because you are anonymous.

Does it somehow make you feel proud or happy to elicit the response I feel compelled to send to you? When you imply that I am "any jackass on the net" does that please whatever, or whoever motivates you?

as you continue to attack me, i'll formally apologize if you took my comment about "any jackass on the net" as implying that you are one. your behavior thus far puts me in mind of it, but i use that colloquialism routinely, because i spend an inordinate amount of my time on wikipedia reverting random vandalism. the internet is full of jackasses who feel unconstrained in adding "was a whore" to the article on Mary (mother of jesus), or "blake is gay" to the middle of the article on the Maldivian honor system. as i have pointedly repeated, you are an anonymous editor here, just like me. anonymity means that i have no way to discern who is or is not a jackass besides the quality of their edits. you have regrettably made a number of edits that are unsourced, do not maintain neutral-point-of-view, and have thrown in a bit of soapboxing with all-caps and bold text where it's inappropriate. i will again advise you to *please* click the 'help' button to the left. if you are new to wikipedia, then you'll help yourself by...helping yourself and using the help available. Anastrophe (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)