Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 17 June 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates. I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.

Pound (mass)

I agree with you that it is inexplicable why the IP has taken you to Wikiquette alerts over Talk: Pound (mass). There is a smell of troll about this affair and I have given the IP a warning. SpinningSpark 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a troll, actually, just a very annoying person. Hans Adler 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just responded at WP:Wikiquette alerts#Talk: Pound (mass) and had to fight myself to avoid putting a link to "troll" into my comment. In the end I decided such a link would not be helpful, and probably the problem is ignorance (both technical and social) rather than trolling, however from the point of view of other editors, there is no difference between what the problem user is doing and what a sophisticated troll would do, so the nonsense needs to be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What a reasonable comment

Just noticed your comment and it is imminently reasonable. You're right that I expected a bit of a reaction upon making the comment. I somewhat naïvely expected it to just stay in the Talk page at the article, in order to stir debate about the impropriety of the term. I'm glad the AN/I debate has remained fairly civil, since most of the time I see AN/I's breaking down into "off with their head" a lot. I'd be fine with striking out the comments, but honestly I would have liked to see a response from Macwhiz, who was the initial person saying the term isn't offensive (which baffles me). Anyway, I appreciate the cordial response you made. -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The guideline makes an incorrect claim about German usage, and of course it doesn't give a source for it. Restoring unsourced demonstrable untruths is vandalism, whether it happens on a guideline page or elsewhere. Hans Adler 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are likely to be blocked now for edit-warring. You appear to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. The only person disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point at the moment is you. It is a simple fact that "Göthe" is totally wrong as a spelling of the historical person in modern German. Restoring a guideline version that implies otherwise after this has been made clear is disruptive and looks like an attempt to bait me into reverting you. Hans Adler 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hans Adler, you seemed to have blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your possible controversial edit is being discussed on the pseudoscience talk page. Is there a reason you are deleting a relevant source despite you claiming the text is only tangentially relevant material? Your previous reasons for deleting the source does not make any sense. How could a source covering pseudoscience not be relevant to an article about pseudoscience? I want to understand your reason you think deleting sourced text from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses the causes and different forms of pseudoscience is appropriate. Do you agree the source must be restored to the Pseudoscience article? QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

These diffs are all from 4 March 2011, i.e. more than 3 months old. In the meantime, they formed part of the background of this Arbcom case in which you were named as an "involved party" but never showed up. Which was a good strategy, because that way you escaped the inevitable sanctions against you. (You should be interested in my evidence on you in that case, as I will reuse it as soon as you get into the focus again, and I don't see how it can take much longer for you to get fully site banned.)

More specifically, I responded to this particular accusation when it was fresh. If you really want me to respond again, take it to a noticeboard. Hans Adler 07:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please try to collabrate. You repeatedly deleted a peer-reviewed sourced on the topic of pseudoscience and replaced it with OR. Do you understand you viollated core Misplaced Pages policy. I think you can restore and sumarise the source or at least agree to the source you deleted must be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, QG. Your timing is brilliant, but I see from your usual editing times that that's most likely an accident. I am not willing to discuss an edit of mine from 3 months ago which we already discussed on ANI at the time. However, as a gesture of good will here is, again, what I said on ANI on 8 March: "QG, I don't think it's a good strategy for you to ignore my detailed explanation after you responded to it." And as an extra service, this is the diff in which I answered your question. Hans Adler 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained why you deleted a source on pseudoscience and blindly replaced it with a source on quackery with OR.

The peer-reviewed sources states pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of public health." There are many examples of the pseudoscience issues. Do you agree the peer-reviewed source must be restored and summarised at this pseudoscience article.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Pseudoscience editing is subject to restrictions

This note is to inform you that Pseudoscience articles are subject to editing restrictions, as outlined by the Arbitration Committee. Please read and familiarize yourself with this remedy. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. Care to let me know what prompts you to mention this, in this way and at this time? I do not recall any recent interactions with you, nor do I believe that I have done anything recently that would normally be occasion for such a message. I have not found anything relevant on your talk page or in your recent contribution history – except that you seem to be leaving this canned message to a lot of users, many of them unknown to me. I ran WikiStalk over all affected users, but got no further insight from it. Hans Adler 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had no interactions of which I am aware, that would place me in the infamous "uninvolved administrator" category, of which you are probably also aware. Regardless of whether you were aware before, you had not been notified, nor had notification been logged, as is required by the remedy, as you would have found has you actually familiarized yourself with the remedy as you were requested above. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have taken an arbitrary decision to notify four users of that old case at a random point in time? And it is just an accident that three of these users recently got slightly aggressive messages from QuackGuru? In my case and that of Becritical, the message by QuackGuru was late by 3 months, in another case it was 5 days late. To me, this suggests very strongly that these messages were prompted by off-wiki activity such as a mailing list. More on your talk page. Hans Adler 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not "in other words". Please cease from your attempts at mind-reading, you are failing rather miserably at guessing my thinking and motivation. I have already responded to your accusation on my talk page; please refrain from any further such pointless attacks. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't begin to actually communicate rather soon, I will go elsewhere to ask for help. Maybe ANI, unless you have a better idea. Hans Adler 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this, Hans. When I've notified several people about sanctions, I'm often not really concerned about all of the editors I notify, but notify them all to be fair. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)