Misplaced Pages

User talk:Geni

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TJive (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 7 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:14, 7 August 2005 by TJive (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

/archive 1

3RR

Reasons why I respectfully think you should reconsider your position on the Curps matter:

  • 1) the claim that protection was not necessary is contradicted by the fact that there was a revert war earlier that day and by the fact that protection has remained in place in the five or six days since.
  • 2) If Curps felt protection was invalid or that the "The wrong version" had been protected there are other routes he could have taken other than violating the 3RR.
  • 3) " there are exceptions to 3RR when it is necessary to undo a wrongful action" yes but those are incidents such as blanking of pages or vandalism. To violate 3RR simply because one disagrees as to which version of the page was protected is an abuse, even if it is done by an admin.
  • 4) If 3RR is to be taken seriously it has to be enforced no matter who violated the rule, even if that person is an admin.
  • 5) "*why the 4 day delay in reporting this?" As I'm an admin with the ability to implement tembans for 3RRs I don't think I've ever listed a 3RR violation on this board before and was not very familiar with it. As I am a party to this dispute I thought it best not to tempban Curps myself so I decided to list it here instead. Also, I didn't realise there actually had been a 3RR violation until someone else mentioned it the other day.
  • 6) For Curps' hyberbole to be valid, administrators have to accept that it is justifiable for an admin to violate the 3RR when The Wrong Version of an article is protected. This would be an unfortunate precedent. AndyL 14:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many, if not most, 3RR disputes are parts of larger conflicts. The fact that Curps is an admin makes enforcement more necessary since it hurts our credibility to enforce 3RR against rank-and-file editors but neglect enforcing it against admins. AndyL 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've said both on the RfC and on an earlier incident page that, in retrospect, when I realised I'd not protected the version I'd intended to it would have been better if I'd let it alone. I'm concerned that Curps has refused to acknowledge any scintilla of error in his actions of unprotecting a page on which he had been engaged in an edit war and giving a disingenuous reason for it (my "wikiholiday") or in regards to his violation of 3RR. Given his involvement of the page he clearly should have a) contacted me with his objection b) failing that contacted other admins, rather than act on his own. I it worrisome that he didn't even admit he reverted four times and refused to answer criticisms of that action on both the admin incident page (where violet/riga criticised him for the 3RR violation) or on the The Matrix talk page where I raised the matter. If he had said something like "oh, I hadn't realised I'd done that" or "oh, I was being hasty" that would be fine but instead he completely ignored the criticism until I finally put it on the 3RR incident page and is now making more and more rationalisations. AndyL 17:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding a rv war on homeopathy

Geni - the edit you reverted can't possibly be a false statement, and your justification is fallatious and in violation with Misplaced Pages's policy about no original research even if it weren't. Misplaced Pages is not the place to establish once and for all eternal truths about medical science, and I think we should try to write articles that don't offend one party or another. --Leifern 22:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

An anon user who apparently uses a dial-up with many IPs has been mindlessly deleting the end of the article for a while now, as many times a day as they have opportunity. I've put in a page protection request because I don't know of any other way of curbing this behavior. If you have any other ideas they'd be most welcome. Meantime, thanks for handling the janitorial work. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

MoS vote

Your two votes on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles did not have your name attached. (You probably typed five tildes, rather than four.) In order for your vote to count, you will need to revisit, and append your sig. Note that the location of the vote has been moved from the talk page. Noisy | Talk 06:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Your repeated attempts at deleting information that doesn't fit your opinions are pathetic, in violation of WP policy, and anything approaching academic or medical ethics. I will fight you every step of the way. You can not delete truthful information unless you find a new home for it elsewhere, e.g., in another article (duely referenced in the article you delete from), whether new or existing. In the absence of such efforts, there is no other way to interpret such deletions other than as attempts to impose your (imho archaic) bias on others. --Leifern 13:19, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the proper thing to say here to you, Leifern, is "Pot. Kettle. Black." Thsgrn 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"12 hour block"

Any particular reason why my 12 hour block (which was unfairly placed on me) lasted for more then 24 hours? I would be most interested in knowing why I've been treated so poorly for merely attempting to keep Misplaced Pages accurate. Alyeska 21:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC notice

Be advised that unless you start playing a constructive role on the discussion on homeopathy in particular and other areas in general, I will issue and RFC on your conduct, which at present is reprehensible. --Leifern 12:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page

I'd like to thank you for the fast revert of the (assumed) vandalism on my talk page. I'm a little new to this, and probably need all the help I can get. W.Haggett 17:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi Geni. Last time William M. Connolley violated the 3RR, you mentioned that the report was initially unclear. Is there any similar clarity problem on this new one? I tried to include both the diffs with respect to the previous post, and the diffs with respect to the revert point (if there's a more clear way to present it in the future, please let me know). Thanks. — Cortonin | Talk 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE and BC/AD

Hey Geni. In case you were unaware, SouthernComfort (talk · contribs) has been part of a small group of people insisting on the use of BCE/CE throughout numerous articles and not just Zoroastrianism. List of kings of Persia has been one other major place of argument and has led to that page being protected.

In an effort to solve all this the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras page has been created to produce a possible solution. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your account committed multiple vandalism attempts on Bill_Clinton (cur) (last) 18:07, 2005 May 24 Geni m (Reverted edits by 207.69.136.199 to last version by 69.7.160.187) (cur) (last) 09:18, 2005 May 25 Geni m (Reverted edits by 12.151.80.14 to last version by 206.183.139.68)

Erika Steinbach

You claim to have reverted Erika Steinbach to "version not created by a person who broke the 3RR". Pardon, which person? The page was reverted by me exactly 3 times on May 24. The 3RR rule applies to reverts that exceeds the 3 permitted reverts. Your reversial of a protected page was such against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Please restore the version by RickK.

you reverted 4 times in 24 hours. One of those reverts was on the 23rd.Geni 22:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Note also that you reverted to a vandalized version created by a person known under 10-15 different sockpuppets, including User:Caius2ga, User:Gdansk, User:Szczecin, User:AntiNaziWatch, User:PolishPoliticians, User:Grand Duke of Poznan, User:Emax and probably others (ask John Kenney or Chris 73 for more details), whose only "contribution" to the article was the claim that a German village was "Nazi occupied Poland" (obviously POV vandalism, and the name of Steinbach's birthplace is confirmed by the official German parliament biography in case you are interested). The person has been banned from Misplaced Pages numerous times for calling a bunch of other contributors "Nazis" and doing his "Nazi" vandalism. He has been a problem for years, read this post by John Kenney at the mailing list (search for caius2ga). --83 (rev Witkacy who is most probably a reincarnation as well. Witkacy shows extremely agressive behavior, very similar to Caius2ga and has been reported several times to JWales)

Geni's talk <> Geni's talk_Geni's_talk-2005-05-26T01:47:00.000Z">

On his page, Geni writes:

Discuss every edit on a talk page. Do not react emotionally. Assume good faith (even when you are pretty sure that the other person is not acting that way). Never revert first. Don 't make or respond to personal attacks. If the other person is trying to make things heated try mediation. Following this lot can result in two outcomes: a. It ends up in arb comm and your case is unasible. b.your opponent adopts these tactics and you end up collaborating on the article.

Sounds good. But this is what he does:

  • Deletes sections, paragraphs, and sentences he disagrees with without discussing them on the talk page
  • Consistently reverts back to his edition, no matter how hard editors try to find a compromise
  • Dismisses (or rather, deletes) assertions by saying they are unsourced
  • When presented with the sources, dismisses them as biased
  • When presented with more sources, explains that Google is not God
  • When all that fails, tries one of the following:
    • Uses fake science and jargon to intimidate his opponent
    • Incorrectly accuses his opponent of rhetorical fallacies
    • Engages in rhetorical fallacies
      • Appeal to authority - "most doctors believe this, so it must be true"
      • Cause and effect confusion
      • Ad hominem attacks
    • Then, when all else fails, jumps at the opportunity to block the opponent without warning.

As a result, he destroys this enterprise by rendering articles useless. --Leifern 01:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Generaly it is accept that at most there is one person who might have the power to destroy wikipedia and it isn't me.Geni 01:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)_Geni's_talk"> _Geni's_talk">
No, you're right - that would be to give you too much credit. But there are several articles of importance to the public interest that you have willfully destroyed. Something to feel good about, isn't it? In the meantime, you might want to read through the literature at this site: http://www.generationrescue.org/ I'm still waiting for you to take up the offer of injecting yourself with Thimerosal at a weight-adjusted dose, since you're so sure it's harmless. --Leifern 01:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
What offer? you have made no past mentions of this what are the details? What would be the point? how would it help in building an encyopedia?. As for that sight it doesn't appear to have anyhting I haven't seen before.
I think the operative term here is seen, because you obviously don't read or comprehend the literature. I have proposed to you earlier that if you are so confident that thimerosal is harmless that parents have no right to be informed about the controversy about it, you should put your own health at risk to prove your conviction. The way it would help in building an encyclopedia would be that you might be a little less convinced about your infallibility. --Leifern 10:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
kindly don't create strawmen. Now do you have any arguments that are not adhoms or appeals to emotion? If not can I suggest you stop wasteing wikipedia server capacity?Geni 13:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I can only note that your edits demonstrate no knowledge of the literature referenced on the website. As for ad hominem, my criticism is directed at your behavior. I know nothing about you personally and have no basis for an ad hominem attack. --Leifern 14:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


I rather gave up after it claimed "There is no evidence to suggest that autism is genetic.". There is quite a bit of evidence.

Look, Geni, I would prefer to work with you rather than against you. I've looked over several dozen of your edits and admin activities, and it seems to me that you do a pretty good job as an admin (though a bit militant at times) and in various articles not related to science and medicine. Let me suggest - and I do this in the kindest possible way - that you rethink your attitude toward the topic. By way of example, let me direct you to articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict where, as you can imagine, there are constant and perennial edit wars. Still, articles are reasonably stable, because editors recognize that both sides to an issue must be given the opportunity to present their side, and virtually every assertion is potentially controversial. My point is this: if it's possible to create reasonably stable articles on that topic, we should be able to make one on homeopathy, thimerosal, etc. --Leifern 15:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

We did. Homeopathy and thimerosal were stable for ages. You must remember that for the most part these articles were not writen by me. If you want an example in the area of alt med largly writen by me try Homeopathic proving.Geni 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

first addition

If the first addition is not counted as a "revert", then this means that in a one-on-one dispute, the person who reverts the addition always "loose" the edit war. Its not the best solution...

Witkacy 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"In the end the rule will favor one or the other"
Yes, but its better to favor the person who reverts the addition. I was not reverting to "my" version - and Zavinbudas is just looking for trouble. The Lithuanian name is of no importance in articles like Gdansk etc. Its like to add Polish names for French cities.. see also:

--Witkacy 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

Recent Baha'i edits

OK nothing terrible for now, but I'd like to get an admin's point of view reasonably quickly before some of the more hot-headed Baha'i wikipedians see this series of edits:

A complete re-write of the Bahá'í Faith article by an anon editor that wasn't discussed. Basically a distinction has been made between the differing Bahá'í sects by moving much of the text relevant to the majority to Baha'i Faith (Haifa)). Having never met a Bahá'í from a different sect I don't know how they refer to us but it's not actually wrong.

I suspect the anon 24.6.117.96 is a returning anon , 218.167.177.133 and 67.188.7.127 from around a month ago who seemed to have a bee in his bonet about the Baha'i electoral system. He also seems to pay a lot of interest into the Bayani religion (a closely related religion who have never been fond of Bahá'ís - we originally sort of shismed from them. Best estimates I have seen number them from 500-5000 in the 1970s)

A couple of problems:

  1. The "Haifan" Bahá'ís are by a LONG way a majority. Misplaced Pages estimates that we have 7 million Haifan Baha'is but the largest minority, the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith (they are known as the Orthodox Baha'is, and we don't just attach the orthodox as a distinction), claims "72 localities". Even if each locality contains 100 members thats 0.1% of the total. The other groups are so small they don't even have a wikipedia page but are covered in Minor Bahá'í divisions.
  2. What does this do to the Featured Article status?

I'd very much like your suggestions on how to move forward. Naturally I'd like to revert it all, but I am aware that I am biased in this matter. -- Tomhab 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also I note that in its present form, its just a summary of three other articles (of the three central figures of the Baha'i faith. If some sort of disambiguation is needed, it will need a lot of editing. -- Tomhab 12:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we can't block him

OK. :) Thanks for the note. func(talk) 02:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rochdale Canal1.jpg

What happened with the image Image:Rochdale Canal1.jpg - I can see you deleted it because it was misnamed, however apparently you didn't re-upload it (at least not on en:, maybe on commons?). I just wonder because that image is still used in Canal, but of course showing an ugly error message. andy 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wished I had seen this first, but...

Jews that feel they can edit against any change from the goyim that doesn't request their prior approval on all Jew-related topics get away with bullying by calling me having anti-Semitism et al. Who is playing the race card, simply because I noticed them using it like an ACLU card? Why am I expected to consult with a Jew every time there is an article that has both Jew and Christian written in the article? How is it that Jews can be so easily offended? Why is it that Jews try to dominate the media, whether they get paid for it or not?

[geni's advice on how to win an edit war Discuss every edit on a talk page. Do not react emotionally. Assume good faith (even when you are pretty sure that the other person is not acting that way). Never revert first. Don 't make or respond to personal attacks. If the other person is trying to make things heated try mediation. Following this lot can result in two outcomes: a. It ends up in arb comm and your case is unasible. b.your opponent adopts these tactics and you end up collaborating on the article.]

If that only solved the loophole problems that exist by manipulating prejudice and other things on here which go unnoticed by all except those accused of vandalism or trolling. I wish that we didn't have to deal with veiled supremacists, but they always try to achieve your trust. I really don't look for edit wars and bitch sessions, but when others don't care and/or are oblivious to systemic bias it really pisses me off. I'm about protesting injustice, with fighting words if that's what it takes to get attention on an issue.

ScapegoatVandal (talk · contribs)

ScapegoatVandal, you realize what you write is public here? --Leifern 17:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal Request

I've been following the discussion over on the Thimerosal page. It is unclear why thimerosal can't simply be replaced. Let's assume large numbers of people do not want to use it for reasons which are completely irrational. Why not humor them and sell vaccines which use a different preservative or are delivered in single doses? Even if the controversy is baseless, it seems to me that it is trivially easy to solve. Yet, we've seen years of acrimony. This suggests there is something I don't know. You seem to know a lot about the subject, wouldn't this be a great thing to add to the page? Peter 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

due to concerns about potential neurotoxic properties of the mercury based compound

Prove it. There are other posible reasons (lawers looking to bring lawsuits that kind of thing).Geni 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The proof of parental concerns about potential risks is well established - hardly in need of proof. Ombudsman 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

conflict of interest

It is trivial to show that this conflict exists. Whether or not it effects their integrity is a different matter. It is however a fact that there is a conflict of interest (unless you are going to deny US court documents)Geni 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up your contribution for you. While the Geiers may reap perhaps thousands and thousands of dollars from clients who are systematically squeezed out of their right to seek redress through deliberately obstructive labyrinthine resolution processes, the poor drug companies can only afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda, lobbying, and bribing government officials and the medical establishment. Ombudsman 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Why have my relevant links been removed from areas of wikipedia? Each provided link does pertain to each category and I can't seem to understand why I have been treated unfairly.User: Hopie

3RR/204...

I don't understand why 204... isn't being blocked for 3RR violation. You made a cryptic comment on the 3RR page that neither I nor Pj can understand. Please explain. William M. Connolley 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for the explanation and the block. William M. Connolley 08:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Evading your block

On the basis of contribs I am 99% sure Agent003 (talk · contribs) is CJ2005B (talk · contribs), SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

An/3rr

Can you undo my edits to the wp:an/3rr page? I'm running into a bizzare software issue.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)


what the hell?

what the hell is your problem man? it took me a long time to get that quote and that cite, in the bush page. then you just remove it, its pertinant, and it should stay. put it back. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Mailing list jollity

> I suggest that candidates must be nominated by an existing admin.

hell does not appear to be frozen over

LOL. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 5, 2005 15:24 (UTC)

3RR

Yesterday, or this morning, depending on your time zone, Huaiwei and Instantnood got in a revert war. You blocked Huaiwei, but apparently did not block Instantnood. Instantnood pointed out he had 5 reverts in two days, but not four reverts in one day, which is pretty obvious evidence of gaming the system. The intent of 3RR is pretty clear that Instantnoods behavior is just as reprehensible. Don't miss the forest from the trees, you should have blocked them both and it's not too late to do so. SchmuckyTheCat 17:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with SchmuckyTheCat, I'm afraid this will further encourage gaming the system -- Vsion 23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC).

geni's advice on how to win an edit war

Hi, I'm following your advice and would like to kindy ask you to revert your own changes at Misplaced Pages:Recentchanges so that the announcement does again "take up space at the top of this page to advertise what must be the millionth severy into thw motivation of wikipedians". See also User talk:KF#Survey Notice on Mainpage and User talk:Mailer diablo#Link to Misplaced Pages:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 for what went on before you got involved.

I wonder what it is that makes people jump at such harmless announcements, shift them around, delete them, etc. <KF> 02:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My reply to you can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Recentchanges#Link to Misplaced Pages:University of Würzburg survey, 2005. <KF> 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That's a great help. I wonder why at first you were so reluctant to disclose it. Maybe I'll try one of the places you have mentioned. All the best, <KF> 22:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

Thanks for unprotecting GWB article...you like canals... this one is obscure, but perhaps a good read if you haven't already. Have a good one!--MONGO 11:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

I've put a new 3RR violation listing up on WP:AN/3RR - would you mind taking a look? Jayjg 19:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

24 Hour Page Protection

Howdy, Geni. You've recently commented on some Earthlink users here and Page Protected Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I'd like to respectfully request that you examine the history of that article, as well as your decision, a little more closely. I believe you will find:

  • There was no 3RR violation, as the reverts were done to correct simple vandalism
  • You reverted the article to a different version prior to protecting, against WP:PPol Protection Policy
  • User:TDC began the vandalism with his unexplained reversion, here, wiping out the last 25 edits by a half-dozen editors over the previous months. When his vandalism was reverted, and requests were made that he explain his edits on the Talk page, he refused. He has also tried to claim he is reverting Copyright violation content, but review of his edit shows that he is instead reverting spelling corrections, formatting, link additions, grammar corrections, while inserting pages of additional content. You have locked the article into this vandalized format, for a reason I cannot comprehend.

I hope this was a simple oversight. Fortunately, it is a short-term protection. Thank you for your time, 165.247.213.210 10:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo

Do you realize that he undid your block, was blocked again, and unblocked himself again? Not only is he not simply doing an Rfa, he's been editing a bunch of other articles as well, see his contribution list. Evidently this guy needs his powers taken away. --TJive 00:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)