| Revision as of 22:07, 27 October 2008 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,526 edits →Oversight: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:09, 27 October 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,526 edits →October 2008: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
| :::Perhaps you should nominate ] for deletion, then? ] (]) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | :::Perhaps you should nominate ] for deletion, then? ] (]) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. '''Don't use language like that again''', and be especially careful in future, so that we all know ''exactly'' what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) ] (]) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | ::::Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. '''Don't use language like that again''', and be especially careful in future, so that we all know ''exactly'' what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) ] (]) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::20 blocks means I'm used to it. And many of those blocks were overturned. People have a hard time dealing with me fairly, assuming that ] shouldn't have to apply to me. Don't you make that mistake now, and don't lecture me on "language" unless you have a degree in linguistics, comparative literature, or can expound academically on the varying standards of the "vulgar". ] (]) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI thread about WP:CANVAS == | == ANI thread about WP:CANVAS == | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 27 October 2008
Due to events largely outside of my control, I have to leave Misplaced Pages. There are people who know what to do if I am to return. When this is done, please e-mail me. If you wish to contact me otherwise, please e-mail me.
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Sorry for the belated notice. I posted your COIN report to ANI for review. Thus far it seems strongly in your favor. See User talk:Mathsci for the source of my concern. Jehochman 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that I am not sure that outing someone was a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Hmm, first of all, who "alerted you"? Secondly, what is the definition of "outing" you're using. Has Pcarbonn complained? If not, how do you know we've outed him? What's more, how do you propose we deal with the fact that there is an obvious conflict-of-interest taking place? I'm all for privacy, etc., but either get the ducks in order and decide what "outing" means (it's not at all clear from WP:OUTING) or figure out what we can do to move Misplaced Pages to a better scenario. These issues are simply going to keep coming up until you guys with power get your acts together. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Who alerted me is not relevant. Sometimes things are brought to my attention confidentially. 2)I'd say any action that associates a real life name or other significant Personally identifiable information (I use the definition common within the HIPAA world, which I sometimes consult within) with a wikipedia userid if that user is not currently willingly disclosing it is potentially an outing. The user has to not wish it to happen, though, if they are ok with it, it's not. If they WERE ok with it but now are not (as is your situation) it's still an outing. 3) Did you ask Pcarbonn if it was OK to so associate him? Complaining requires awareness. If I out you but you're not aware of it, it's still an outing, don't you agree? 4) I think the COI could be raised without the outing, in this case. However I do agree that any system such as ours in which we allow pseudonymous editing is going to have these edge case problems. Which is why I favour only allowing editing by IDs that have disclosed their real world identities. "good luck!" is indeed going to be needed. I hope that answers your questions, and I look forward to your response here, I have your page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the actual names from the COIN section you created. I feel you should have been willing to do so without further prompting but since you did not I have done so for you. Please do not out others again, or you may face consequences. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- And the editor put his name back. No outing. Verbal chat 10:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- In this case. But the default assumption in ambiguous cases (as this one was) needs to be that the user does not want their name associated until we clearly know differently. So removal was the conservative and prudent thing to do, absent clarification. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting
- I'm not clear here how you're drawing these inferences. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear for those that think this seems rather an odd comment, it was interspersed with two other edits, removed by the author of the edits in this edit: I leave it to SA to leave or remove this as he sees fit, as is his decision by our custom. The question itself does still perplex me. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
COI evidence
I see that you have not responded to my request for more evidence to back up your accusation of COI against you-know-who. Do you have any? Olorinish (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
About your COI evidence, it was so lame that (a) I couldn't understand it, and (b) someone declared the issue closed as not a COI, which doesn't look good. You need to explain yourself better, or be prepared for heavy criticism. From me. Olorinish (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please redirect your efforts to areas more in need of your specialties
If you get bored of trying to substantiate your "bad hand" accusations (and you will, because I've been editing entirely in good faith) may I recommend that you have a look at Cryonics, Cryogenics, and related articles? For example, please see that this is used as the first source in the intro to Cryonics, and has been for some time.
Wouldn't your time be better spent routing out that sort of thing than trying to pull Cold fusion -- about which reasonable scientists have disagreed and will continue to disagree -- to your particular interpretation? Do you really want to sully your reputation any further by going around trying to expose editors for having a different point of view than your own? Are you even familiar with the recent literature on cold fusion? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for a voluntary topic ban
ScienceApologist, I am disgusted by your accusation that PCarbonn has a conflict of interest since you refuse to back it up with hard evidence. I think it would be a good idea for you to voluntarily refrain from editing the cold fusion page and the cold fusion discussion page for a period of one year. Olorinish (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ororinish, please assume good faith and stop your poor faith and uncivil edits to this talk page - please see the harassment policy and our civility guidelines. Having a difference of opinions is no reason to ask someone to remove themselves from editing an article. If you feel you have a problem with SA, please refer to the dispute resolution procedures. Verbal chat 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that after reading Verbal's comment, I deleted something I wrote. Olorinish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Energy revert
Please take a look at my comment in Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard. You reverted my edit. Before I try to get around your reversion, I'd be interested in your thinking. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Energy availability image
Hi, I just wanted to say that I replaced the image you removed because this debate has come up before. There are a good amount of editors who disagree with your assesment on various grounds, so I think the best course would be to take the usage of the image to the talk page. Nothing personal. NJGW (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wackos
Shouldn't that be "cold fusion fringe science promoters"? Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Got through the screener! If there was a way to redact edit summaries I would do so! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL
Hi ScienceApologist. Sorry to bother you again. When you removed my last warning, I notice you used the edit summary: "Don't need cold fusion wackos whining.." Whether this was aimed at me or another user (and I really don't care which it was at this point), this is a breach of our policy WP:CIVIL. If I see you playing fast and loose with any more of our policies over the next days I will give you a mini-wikibreak without further warning. Just thought I'd let you know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- John has an interesting Quote on his userpage -- " 'Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress' . Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- John should have a read of WP:DTTR. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me that misses the point. ScienceApologist appears to indeed have been edit warring on the cold fusion article. Rather than grousing about the exact nature of the warning John gave, it might be useful for his friends to remind ScienceApologist not to edit war. That series of edits is in my view far enough over the line (with snarky edit summaries to boot) to be well worthy of a block. That John chose to warn instead of block was a kindness. Biting back at that? Not so much of a kindness at all. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bollocks. If you think that warning was "kind" rather than snarky patronising then heaven help wikipedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The kindness was in warning, rather than blocking, not the wording. The wording is contained in a template so if the wording isn't, in your view, kind enough, you know what to do, it's a wiki. BUt you miss the point as well. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bollocks. If you think that warning was "kind" rather than snarky patronising then heaven help wikipedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me that misses the point. ScienceApologist appears to indeed have been edit warring on the cold fusion article. Rather than grousing about the exact nature of the warning John gave, it might be useful for his friends to remind ScienceApologist not to edit war. That series of edits is in my view far enough over the line (with snarky edit summaries to boot) to be well worthy of a block. That John chose to warn instead of block was a kindness. Biting back at that? Not so much of a kindness at all. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- John should have a read of WP:DTTR. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Cold fusion/1, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually looks like he's commenting on the edits, not the editor, and in this case of a civil POV pusher. NJGW (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, you're right. However, words like 'bollocks' are never needed, however strong your feelings over cold fusion are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should nominate WP:BOLLOCKS for deletion, then? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. Don't use language like that again, and be especially careful in future, so that we all know exactly what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- 20 blocks means I'm used to it. And many of those blocks were overturned. People have a hard time dealing with me fairly, assuming that WP:AGF shouldn't have to apply to me. Don't you make that mistake now, and don't lecture me on "language" unless you have a degree in linguistics, comparative literature, or can expound academically on the varying standards of the "vulgar". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. Don't use language like that again, and be especially careful in future, so that we all know exactly what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should nominate WP:BOLLOCKS for deletion, then? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, you're right. However, words like 'bollocks' are never needed, however strong your feelings over cold fusion are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
ANI thread about WP:CANVAS
Hey, I just noticed nobody has given you notification of this thread. Some concerns that your recent notifications about Cold fusion have crossed a bit of a line. I sympathize, but tend to agree: 13 pages is a bit excessive for what is clearly a non-neutral notification. I don't have a problem with notifying a non-neutral invitation for a few buddies to show up, and I don't have a problem with a wide distribution of a neutral notification, but I agree with what others have said, that this was stretching the CANVAS guidelines a bit far.
Cheers, and keep up the good work at fighting FRINGE! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, an RfC and Wikiproject notices might be a better way to proceed in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. I know of no other way to get the attention that is required other than posting to a wide range of individuals, projects, and noticeboards. I'm sick and tired of people trying to tie my hands in disputes and will, frankly, not stand for it. If Pcarbonn can get a free pass telling people on his pro-cold fusion blog to edit cold fusion articles, surely I can let people on the project, above the table, know that there is a problem with POV-Pushing at Cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the blog thing is true, then that's meat puppetry and seems blockable. You mentioned SPA accounts somewhere else before... maybe that's an issue to pursue. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- You did it in good faith, that's true, but next time try and keep the notifications to three or four :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- And which three-or-four should those be? I placed a notice on FTN yesterday to no avail. What's the alternative? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to give it more time than one day to generate a reply. I didn't have as much of a problem with the tagging at the article as much as the lack of discussion that ensued. More time was spent posting on over a dozen noticeboards, projects and talk pages than discussing what the tags were about. I don't see a major issue with the notifications as long as it remains neutral, perhaps with the wording of, "I noticed that you were involved with the Cold Fusion article in the past. Your assistance may be required; please see the respective talk page for further information. Thanks." seicer | talk | contribs 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, if you think you need to canvas more than three or four people (and I don't doubt there is value in doing so), then to be in compliance with WP:CANVAS it would be better if the notification were worded neutrally. (I mean, seriously, do you think that OrangeMarlin is going to see a neutrally-worded notification about a POV dispute on Cold fusion and think to himself, "Gee, I better get over there and defend the brave scientists working on condensed matter nuclear reactions!" :p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's applicable to an extent, but if you are canvassing to push a certain objective or point, then that can be considered disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or your harassment of science-editors could be construed as disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's applicable to an extent, but if you are canvassing to push a certain objective or point, then that can be considered disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, if you think you need to canvas more than three or four people (and I don't doubt there is value in doing so), then to be in compliance with WP:CANVAS it would be better if the notification were worded neutrally. (I mean, seriously, do you think that OrangeMarlin is going to see a neutrally-worded notification about a POV dispute on Cold fusion and think to himself, "Gee, I better get over there and defend the brave scientists working on condensed matter nuclear reactions!" :p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be acceptable to give it more time than one day to generate a reply. I didn't have as much of a problem with the tagging at the article as much as the lack of discussion that ensued. More time was spent posting on over a dozen noticeboards, projects and talk pages than discussing what the tags were about. I don't see a major issue with the notifications as long as it remains neutral, perhaps with the wording of, "I noticed that you were involved with the Cold Fusion article in the past. Your assistance may be required; please see the respective talk page for further information. Thanks." seicer | talk | contribs 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- And which three-or-four should those be? I placed a notice on FTN yesterday to no avail. What's the alternative? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- You did it in good faith, that's true, but next time try and keep the notifications to three or four :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oversight
Hi - I was wondering how WP:OVERSIGHT applied to this edit? You're not meeting the "non-public personal information" clause - the information is publicly available on Misplaced Pages - it's not removal of potentially libellous information, as the information is not untrue or unduly weighted - and copyright issues don't come into it. Is there another reason that I'm not up to speed on? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you're calling it under case two, it has to be potentially libellous, in addition to the reasons you've stated. Is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- You shall have to make your own judgement per WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you're calling it under case two, it has to be potentially libellous, in addition to the reasons you've stated. Is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)