You've reached User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 6, an archive of User talk:Scientizzle. Please do not edit this page. You're encouraged to leave a message on my regular talk page and link to the archived discussion.
Please remember to hardblock all Tor and open proxy IPs. I just found a pedophilia trolling sock on a Tor IP that you had softblocked: [1]. I'm not sure if that's just a one-time mistake, or if you've been doing that for a while (if so, perhaps you could go back and fix them). Thanks. Dmcdevit·t16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Thank you very much for your continuous help & support to improve this article. I want this article to be one of the best articles on the Wikipedia, therefore, my dream is to make this article GA and then FA on Wikipedia. Could you possibly guide me that what else can be done to achieve this goal? Thanks & regards,--Asikhi (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've noticed the same pattern, but was not aware that WP:RFCU existed. Now that I do, I think that it would be a good idea. I've obviously never done one so if you could set it up I would be glad to help link evidence (I'm sure there's plenty) or whatever else you need. I have to sign off now too, but I should be on tomorrow; you know where to find me, hopefully we can put an end to this charade. Thank you! Blackngold2905:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing for certain, there is no possible shortage of patients for mental health professionals as long as there are users like that Bullyingsucks2004 nimrod running around. Thanks for protecting the talk page. That guy was at it for a long time and doublessly yucking it up the whole time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Look. Your old account, ESCStudent774441 (talk·contribs), was blocked for good reasons. That you have withdrawn all legal threats means I won't currently block this account. Just go do something constructive and leave the dramatic nonsense. Convince me you're not here for some bizarre attention-whoring lark... — Scientizzle18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I did want to edit, my home IP address has been blocked. You know which one it is. This is my brother in law's computer I use to write to you. I need the IP unblocked to edit from my home system. Whether you unblock my old account is up to you sir. Maybe with this one, I can start fresh without my past misdeeds attached to this account. In any event, God Bless you Scientizzle. I would like your counsel and a greeting on my talk page. ForeverSearching (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's my opinion that you've had your fair share of "fair hearings". I consider your posting history (as ForeverSearching (talk·contribs), ESCStudent774441 (talk·contribs), 68.236.154.131 (talk·contribs), RogueKnight774441 (talk·contribs), & 74.76.203.209 (talk·contribs)) to be largely melodramatic, disingenuous, and unconstructive. Wasn't this a "final appeal" on your behalf? Haven't you "retired" over & over? You even wrote today, in your slew of talk page postings that you are (yet again) "resign[ing] from Wikipedia"[2] and your "[r]esignation [is] now in effect]"[3]. So which is it? Are you actuallyresigning? (Never mind the obvious fact that claims of "retirement" in the wake of repeated blocks is entirely fatuous. I see no reason for a "fresh start"--and certainly nothing done to earn such a consideration.)
The only reason I haven't yet blocked is that you actually withdrew all the legal bull you previously spread around. That you repeatedly moved accounts & IPs to evade several fully-justified blocks doesn't win you any points. (I note that this account was created on the same day as RogueKnight774441 and this message.)
Here's my offer, assuming you're not really retiring:
You disclose, here or at User talk:ForeverSearching, any other accounts you've created to circumvent your prior ban.
I'll unblock your home IP and leave a note on User:ForeverSearching that it is an alternate acount of ESCStudent774441 with an administrator's "last chance" approval. You will, in good-faith, edit only with the ForeverSearching account (accidental IP logouts, of course, are OK).
You'll actually be a productive editor, improving articles (try this one, it needs help) and following the rules, and steer clear of off-topic talkpage banter. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and definitely not a free speech forum.
If you are disruptive in any way, particularly if you offer up any further legal threats (readWikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Free speech, really), I will block all associated accounts and IP addresses, very possibly resulting in one of these.
I consider this offer is more than fair. If you're not willing to do this, I'm not willing to help you any further. And I won't stand in the way of anyone's potential futher adminstrative actions regarding this account. — Scientizzle20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I accept your offer of aid. I'd like to get on friendly terms with you. Here is my handshake on this issue. Wish I could really do it. I have, to disclose this account, RogueKnight77441, ESCStudent 774441, this acoount ForeverSearching and JusticeWithReason. The ones I used to evade the block were RogueKnigh774441, the IP from this computer, and my home IP address. ForeverSearching and JusticeWithReason were created to ask for forgiveness, and not meant to avoid the blocking law. I like you sir, and I would like to give my old account a chance to rehabilitate. Hope to see you again. If you would like to call me, I'll give you my home phone number. ForeverSearching (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i reported this to another admind but thye havnet replyaed yet....
the user nouse4aname has undo my edit 4 times with the last 24 hours so to aviod an edit war and to aviod violating the 3rr rule, i stopped editing the page, however i put the edit war warning on his page and told him since he undo my eidts 4 times he violated the rule, he then removed it from the page to make himself look like he has a better history so i added it back just now and that is where we are. he has a nack for customizzing the pages to his likeing, he will follow one rule thne dis obey another if he doesnt like it, he has been nothing but an annoniance since he started edited the used page, since he violred the 3rr rule and removed the warning i think u shud give him a ban to teach him a lesson., i just checked and he removed the warning again so i will re add it again, the page he violted the 3rr on was shallow believer, he keeps removing the warning label from his page to make himself look good and he wont stop, he remove it and add it back but he wont let it stay there....he also stalks me on here and went to the other admins talk page to stand up for himself b4 the admin replyed to him so that shows he is just following every edit i make. here is his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nouse4aname#usedUSEDfan (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much hearing one side of the story. As he is an established user he doesn't need to keep seeing the template on his talk page. In addition, he has a right to remove it from his talk page per wp:DRC. --Bit Lordy (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm not sure why I was chosen to be informed about this. I do note, however, that both Nouse4aname (talk·contribs) & USEDfan (talk·contribs) have been blocked for edit warring. Given that there's a series of reversions of reversions of reversion between the two, seems like a good idea. I don't think there's anything for me to do here. — Scientizzle21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For making me realize that it is totally futile to attempt to bring the presentation in the Homeopathy even near apparently fair. Because you and some other editors have taken the responsibility to reverting any edit which is in contradiction to you opinion under one excuse or other. You can go ahead and ban me from editing that article, because I am going to actively restrain myself even to visit that article in future. I am only sorry that your behavior has left a bitter taste in me, that is in contradiction with my experience with wikipedia so far. Bye Hallenrm (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've take the responsibility of reverting poor quality edits, which is, in my opinion, largely what you've provided to the article. I have no wish that you "actively restrain" from editing homeopathy, just that you better follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines in both your content edits and interactions with other editors. — Scientizzle19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for leaving a massage on my talk page! I always had a high regard for the wikipedia project, but considering the behavior of editors like you, I am sometimes doubtful of its future. You succeed in repelling more editors than attracting. Perhaps that's what you want. I would only like to request you to be a bit more thoughtful in your reverts, and do not think that all opinions expressed contrary to your current opinions to be in bad faith. Editors who hold contrarian belief can also be equally scientific. Hallenrm (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not think that all opinions expressed contrary to your current opinions to be in bad faith. I don't; but I do hold obvious bad-faith statements to be so. I have not reverted based on your opinion, I've reverted based on the poor addition to content quality and equally poor adherence to Wikipedia policy. I welcome quality edits from anyone, scientific-minded or otherwise. — Scientizzle19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But your actions indicate otherwise. Because if what you say was true you would not have reverted my edit for removing a reference to an article in Newsweek, on grounds that are not defensible when you had reverted my edits simply because that they were not supported by peer reviewed journals. Since when articles published in Newsweek are more authentic then those published In New Scientist, and that too on science subjects. The revert clearly indicates your bias against Homeopathy. You will accept any edition as long as it is against homeopathy and not that even remotely suggests that there may be some merit in further investigation,or even attempts to further our current knowledge. It is indeed unfortunate for wikipedia that an editor like you has been made a wikipedia Administrator. You are not, in my considered opinion fit for this responsibility. I have come across several administrators since i started editing on wikipedia,it is almost five years by now, but have not come across any brash administrator, but my latest experience has proved otherwise.Hallenrm (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you still don't understand all of the separate issues involved in my two reversions. Perhaps, I should should explain once again, maybe you'll understand. I do hope you'll stop with the unnecessary invective.
I eventually reverted, attempting to explain in my edit summary these important issues:
As a matter of practice, those of us that have edited at Homeopathy, from all sides, have eschewed using primary sources (such as single research publications) to support tenuous claims, instead preferring secondary sources (i.e., reviews and meta-analyses), particularly since they often cover all the relevant primary sources. To wit, see conversations I had with very pro-homeopathy editors here, resulting in this research. I encourage you to ask any other editor familiar with Talk:Homeopathy if this characterization is incorrect...
Your link to the New Scientist was demonstrably inaccurate. I hope you can see that. Please note that I have no problem with using New Scientist as a source--I often read the publication. I've never argued that "articles published in Newsweek are more authentic then those published In New Scientist" or anything remotely close; I cannot honestly understand how such an opinion can be attributed to my statements or actions.
On a further note, Tim Vickers and I subsequently worked together to create a better-sourced, more accurate version of what you were evidently trying to accomplish. (Certainly further evidence of my immutable bias?)
Part two
You removed an accurately and properly cited direct quote, from a reliable source, by an individual of obvious merit and interest in the field.
As I explained in my revert, I see no compelling reason to remove such good-quality material. Would you care to explain?
Finally, statements such as
You will accept any edition as long as it is against homeopathy and not that even remotely suggests that there may be some merit in further investigation,or even attempts to further our current knowledge
are inaccurate, insulting, and entirely unreasonable. Clearly you have not followed my editing history on this page.
Hallenrm, you swept into the homeopathy page, making large obviously-one-sided edits, without any prior discussion on the talk page. You then went about insulting a number of editors, insisting on bias (no doubt under the spell of multinational drug companies). And I'm the "brash" one? I welcome a response from you regarding any responses to the questions I have asked above, disagreements with the facts I have cited (I won't hold my breath for any apologies regarding the untoward treatment). Further incivility on my talk page won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted one of my edits saying "Research on medical effectiveness: deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional jounal"
So i edited a statement that does not meet the above limits viz that referring to an article in Newsweek, satying "deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional journal" because Newsweek does not meet the criteria of a peer reviewed journal. You then reverted me saying, "there are multitudionous sources presented in the article that support this claim; it's of obvious interest and relevance, properly cited, ". Obviously you are changing your stand as and when it suits your bias. Why not otherwise support the statement in Newsweek by even a single of these multitudionous sources rather than giving a reference to a NMews magazine published from USA. Similarly when I added a statement from an article published In New Scientist, it was not accepted because "Source insufficiently reliable to counteract statements of peer-reviewed research" So what is exactly the policy? To accept only statements from peer reviewed journal or any statement, anywhere that puts homeopathy in doubt?
Secondly as per the wikipedia article on reliable sources says "The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes."
The article that i referred to was written by a Pharmacist holding a degree of PharmD [4]and on the website of a person who had a meeting with the Polish Minister of Health and delivered two lectures. But that is not considered reliable by you and other editors who are currently active in reverting and deleting edits by other editors, who have been enpowered to decide what is a good quality edit unilaterally. Hallenrm (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are changing your stand as and when it suits your bias.
Are you even reading what I've written?! Newsweek is a good source. New Scientist is a good source. I didn't reject your New Scientist addition because it doesn't meet WP:RS, but because you attributed wildly inappropriate claims to its 150 word blurb. Isn't this clear yet? Furthermore,
If you want to start an actual, civil conversation on the applicability of a source, the proper thing to do is start a talk page thread or head to WP:RS/N, not sling around accusations of bias because you didn't get your way. You have yet to treat anyone around the Homeopathy articles with any respect. I won't allow further incivility on my talk page, so if you respond, it should be with the decorum appropriate for civilized adults. — Scientizzle15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a bit sorry for my conduct. I read the full homeopathy article again with a cool mind and found that it is indeed not too much biased afterall, give and take some statements here and there, but that is indeed inescapable on a wiki. So, please pardon me, we may not come across each other very often, but, whenever we do i shall remember my folly. Hallenrm (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I will offer my apologies regarding any statements I have made that were inaccurate or rude. I hope we can work together to improve this article...I am not unsympathetic to the stance that the current version is a just a bit heavy on the skepticism, but I feel WP:NPOV is best acheived not by the addition of similarly strong claims in the other direction, but by measured rewording of relevant passages to give the most accurate and dispassionate view. — Scientizzle18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to bother you and I know that you are very busy but I hope you can spare a minute of your time to help me resolve this issue or perhaps redirect this message to someone who may be willing to help.
I am contacting you regarding the article about Fotki which was deleted from Wikipedia some time ago because it did not meet WP:WEB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB), which states that an
article must have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. One of the Fotki staff members spoke with Phillip who suggested that we contact you. He also wrote that if we have proper references, we may be able to put the article back up. This is what I am trying to do. Fotki is a popular and well-known image hosting service and one of the oldest photo sharing web sites on the Internet.
I am not on Fotki's payroll but I've been a Fotki user since 2003 and I've done various volunteer work for Fotki. I truly believe that I am the right person to write an article about Fotki since I know the site very well and I am not closely affiliated with the company.
I rewrote the article that was deleted keeping in mind the basic principles of Wikipedia which I carefully studied. I also improved and expanded the reference list in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I will further improve the article if my request is approved. I have put the draft version (unformatted) on my user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pikerecords.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance in this matter.
Hi Pikerecords, if you haven't seen it yet, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fotki (2). Fotki was clearly on the borders of notability and the prior version was lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. You are certainly welcome to give the article another shot...I'll restore the old version to User:Pikerecords/Fotki for you to continue improving the content--it'll also help with the formatting if you've got the basic setup ready. When you think you've got it in a finalized version, drop on by--I'll take a look and help you move it to the mainspace if you need help. Cheers, — Scientizzle18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Italian Wall Lizard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I blocked first to keep it contained within the usertalk page. My problem was the short cycle of the vandalbot (9 revs/minute) was quicker than my attempts to delete the page history and immediately salt. Maybe I should ask the devs if there's a way that protection can stick around after deletion...? — Scientizzle23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"stubborn, disruptive"? Them fightin' words! I think it's bad judgement for Realkyhick to not only following me around and trying to delete articles that I wrote but also threatening me with a block for something I didn't even do or say I would do (saying if I re-created a deleted article, even if were improved, that you would block me).
If you write comments which are not confrontational that Realkyhick "appreciates", then you are showing good judgement.
The re-creation of Sam Swope if done as an example of good writing, is good as an example. I thought I mentioned the awards. An unnamed person (unnamed to reduce conflict) accused me of making up the information about awards.
If the re-creation of Sam Swope is done to pacify me, that's not necessary. I dropped the Sam Swope matter because I thought it was barely notable.
I do think the Joey Didier case is much more notable than the over 100 murders that have happened in the region since then. Most of those 100's are not notable for Wikipedia standards.
As far as being accused of canvassing, I was only asking others for information and ideas on why Joey Didier is notable. I did NOT ask them to write to anyone. I think I asked them not to write except to give me ideas to mention about notability and significance. That's no different from asking your friends or colleagues on how you can write an article.
I'm sending you this because I noticed you were active in the former league of copy-editors. I joined the LOCE something like a few days before it became historical, and have been making a somewhat lonely effort to reduce the copy-edit backlog, so I've been curious - why did the LOCE close, are there any efforts going on out there to reduce the copy-edit backlog, and do you think there's a point in establishing (and would you join) a wikiproject purely to maintain the category of articles needing copy edits?
I've been having a hard time getting people on related projects (WP:PR, WP:GAN, etc) to help with the backlog, so I'm trying to gather suggestions or help regarding starting a project simply to maintain the category of articles needing copy edit.
I'm curious as to why you deleted all the information about Empire State College. The article is now much smaller than Stetson University's, with a much larger student body. (Why the heck would I be interested in both Stetson University and ESC? My mother teaches at ESC. I adjuncted a couple of courses at ESC. I'm a Stetson graduate. My wife teaches at Stetson.) I'm curious as to why certain information is considered publishable and other not. Fredrik Coulter (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned upEmpire State College to improve upon several aspects. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, there's no need to list all degrees & classes available. Additionally, the prior content was formatted poorly with considerable use of words & phrases more appropriate for advertisements. My pruning of the unnecessary detail regarding the programs has paved the way for a clearer article about the university. (Stetson University, in my opinion, suffers from a bloat of unnecessary detail as well...) I hope you'll use your interest in ESC to expand the article with further encyclopedic interest. — Scientizzle21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dice da Playboy is a real person, he is an up and coming rapper. I even left the myspace link on the article to show that he is real. It is myspace.com/dicedaplayboy. He is becoming famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Brooklyn (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In submitting a revision to the Janelia Farm wiki page, we (HHMI) used language that we had originally written about Janelia Farm. The text was not "other people's text," it was ours. What can we do to acknowledge that it is OK to use this text to describe our own campus?
Thanks.
206.241.2.38 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concede your point on the article on Empire State College. So therefore, I removed Dr. Joyce Elliot from the article as Interim President and left Dr. Alan Davis as you wanted listed as the named President, with the notation of his appointment effective in a couple days on August 1. AdirondackMan (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor seems to think we're deleting her references rather than improving them. Is it so wrong of me to find the outbursts directed at me on the talk page hilarious? :) I hope they calm down though, they could do themselves an injury (and avoiding the personal pronoun is getting tiresome!) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being you're allowing me to remain, can I be labeled as a legitimate starting over account to separate myself from the past? Rather not have it be part of me anymore. AdirondackMan (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In due time. I'm going out of town in a bit. You'd be better served making positive contributions than worrying about a userpage tag. Please use your time & energy to improve articles--any articles, even if it's just grammar or wikilinks. That's all I'm looking for, a clear demonstration of encyclopedia building. — Scientizzle05:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zebras are not allowed to participate at COTW, but penguins may
Hi, you deleted my page, which gave the lyrics to the alternate version of Part of your World, a dirty version that is a youtube phenomenon. It is only under construction. I haven't yet finished adding references and things of this nature. I would like this page to be re-created, or at least have a better understanding as to why it isn't allowed on wikipedia.
No problem. No harm in your warning at all, but it was clear from the second edit that this wasn't an editor worth putting up with. Cheers, — Scientizzle22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just as an FYI, I removed the entries from the July 25th AfD log that you commented out here. For some reason, the "view log" link from the AfD's when they were opened individually resolved to the old log even though the entries were commented out. There is a guide to relisting discussion at the deletion process pages. I hope this helps. Thanks for helping reduce the backlog by relisting discussions! Protonk (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. On further reflection, that doesn't appear to solve the problem. looks like I have to change it manually. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Ok. I fixed it manually. That was odd. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I've been commenting them out forever now (it seemed to be the en vogue thing to do back in the day). I guess the problem is the "view log" button is automatically substituted upon the creation of the AfD page--thus, it won't change when the AfD page is transcluded elsewhere however it's done. I personally like the commenting out way of doing it bacause it provides a subtle trace of what's been relisted in a log, without digging thorugh the history, and acheived the same effect of untranscluding the AfD page. — Scientizzle19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after I got done writing "O HAI, there is a deletion policy, you know...", I saw the mop at the top of the page. :) <---sheepish. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure why it happened either. My first guess was the commenting bit but if you've been doing that for years it has to be something else. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not the commenting out, just the programming of the {{afd2}} which makes a substituted hardlink on the day of the discussion creation to that day's log. — Scientizzle19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The establishment of notability on Wikipedia is outlined in Wikipedia:Notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
This means that any topic should show demonstrable coverage by external sources. So, if W-PuTTY-CD ever gets covered by a newspaper or PC Mag or some other outlet of substance (i.e., not self-published sources such as blogs) that can contribute to the demonstration of encyclopedic notability. — Scientizzle18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, but note it is beta as built on PuTTY which is still beta, I think it was a good asset to Wikipedia not to its authors, at least better than Cfdisk which is of no use. Regards--Puttyschool (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note, comments like some of yours in the the aforementioned AfD and this aren't helpful. Also,this has received no comments because you didn't follow the instructions--but I guarantee that the request will fail based on your limited experience. You need a lot more time to demonstrate admin abilities. — Scientizzle19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scientizzle,
I've finished the Fotki article we talked about a month ago and I need help moving it to the wiki page. Please take a look when you have time. Also, I failed to figure out how to add the company logo. It was rejected 2 times because the image was copyrighted. Well yes, it is copyrighted because it's the company logo, but how did Flickr load theirs? I was authorized by Fotki's CEO to write this article and I have his consent to use the logo.
I'm proposing to have WP:TOV/NeuroRev become a policy, for exactly the reason we saw on Wikipedia:AN/I#Threats_of_Violence. Unfortunately it seems to a lot of editors as well as Admins, threats, even drastic ones such as this, go ignored as hoaxes. It's disturbing to me to think I may be threatened, or the Wikimedia Foundation in general, could be threatened, and someone will sweep it under the rug with reverts and not even consider informing me, or the foundation. I hope I'll see your support on WP:TOV/NeuroRev after this incident, and you'll better inform the proper authorities so that the problem can be dealt with.
I do think that I would prefer to debate, or talk about these concepts rather than to set some sort of definitive text. I think we can agree to disagree about the micro/macro evolution debate. I entirely understand the macroevolution argument, makes sense to me...however it is not fact. Just as plate tectonics is not a fact, cell theory is not fact. Look at the cell theory article on Wikipedia, it states clearly that it is a theory, multiple times.
Why must we, as scientists, demand evolution to be a fact as a reaction to fundamentalism or criticism. I think few people would argue the legitimacy of cell theory, however it remains a theory, a strongly supported, universal, and broadly accepted theory that unifies a broad range of observations. If layman frequently misunderstand the meaning of a theory in science, then let them. Just as the scientific community, on wikipedia included, does not want to put American conversions for scientific articles, because the articles are for scientists.
If someone misunderstands evolution, theory, cells, religion, death metal or homosexuality, why must we react so vehemently that we are willing to break our own rules (science is NOT a collection of facts-this is a central tenant of science...I know, I teach it!) to convince them of something? I just want equal treatment for all science. I think it says something about the scientific community that our reactions about factuality of evolution are in direct opposition to the views of someone else. would we claim it to be fact so vehemently if we were not challenged?
Hello again to those of WikiProject Oregon. It is time again for another Collaboration of the Week. The last two weeks were a Stub Improvement Drive, and thank you to those who improved any Stubs.
This week marks the one week anniversary of the COTW, so a brief highlight reel:
At least 10 DYKs
Three articles passed GA after being listed at COTW
Probably around 25 articles started
Almost all Top importance articles are now better than Stub class
I actually know about the page "evolution as theory and fact". I am a Biology teacher, I have been an archaeologist for 3 years professionally as well as an amateur paleontologist. I am not a fundamentalist or anything of the sort. The fact is I am trying to maintain the integrity of science in general, so that we do not fall for the same mistakes caused by pride, stubbornness, or opinion driven arguments.
I am NOT questioning the validity of evolution, trust me. I am stating that we need to present it as it is, a well established scientific theory, macroevolution, or speciation is NOT fact, any honest scientist HAS to admit this under the very principles of science. Yes, microevolution is fact...we see it, we observe it. But if we couple evolution as one, present it is fact, we are doing a disservice to the scientific community. Just because Gould or others has stated it is a fact, does not make it so. If you don't believe me, read some scientific "facts" from a century or more ago.
I am not going to attempt to edit these pages anymore regarding evolution, because it is apparent that much of the scientific community is more concerned with battling religious fundamentalism and not in sincere pursuit of understanding our world. Humility is extremely important in science, I wish we could all see that.
However, thank you for your email, it was polite and respectful and I appreciate that. Good luck on your journey of discovery.
I'll reply on your talk page shortly, but will use this space to respond to a couple of your points...
It's my opinion, and I think it substantially represents the field, that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are arbitrary divisions of the exact same process--the distinction is not mechanistic, only a difference in time-scales. The problem here is enhanced by clouded nomenclature, particularly when the colloquial usage of a term is dramatically different from the scientific. The natural human tendency to seek discrete conditions from which to form organizational categories rears its ugly head when one realizes that nature has no concept of speciation as we define it...The truly difficult thing regarding topics like evolution, in my opinion, is the proper balance of nuance and clarity, oversimplification without becoming mired in confusing detail. (A related difficulty is the seeming abhorrence of nuance by the general populace these days...)
I share your sentiments regarding humility and integrity, and view efforts to strengthen these elements within Wikipedia's science reporting as a virtue. No doubt there can be a tendency towards hubris when science is confronted by nonscientific ideas (multiplied when proponents of said nonscientific ideas are overwhelmingly more media-savvy, i.e. intelligent design or alternative medicine)...I cringe when I how poorly the "reason" side tends to fare in these conflagrations.
To go by the strict definition of "small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations", I'd expect the vast majority of such events are transient or possibly "silent", having no readily discernible effect on phenotype. — Scientizzle23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is up for deletion and since I noticed that you know something on this article perhaps you can add some insight in the discussion.Callelinea (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw on the Newton's Laws of Motion discussion page that you made a statement to the effect of, F=ma is not adequate for dealing with systems with variable mass, and that the equation F=d(mv)/dt correctly accounts for variable mass systems. I fail to understand how this is the case, and I was hoping you might be able to give me an example of a variable mass system that is correctly modeled using the latter form. I am not looking to start an argument, I am actually hoping that somebody will be able to give me an example, because I know of none. Thanks! MarcusMaximus (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only came to that discussion because of the RfC, and I'm a marginal physicist. It's possible I'm wrong, but I'm not sure. In my comment I stated that F=ma should be front-and-center because it is, at least, the most familiar form of the law. To be sure that you're correct (and I see you've brought it up a couple places), you should check it against the cited sources in the article. [5][6][7] These links seem relevant. — Scientizzle19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that of five sources cited in the article, only one even mentions the F=d(mv)/dt form. Unfortunately, I don't have access to read the first two references you gave me. The third reference, however, is incorrect. It asserts that F=d(mv)/dt is the correct form, and that F=ma is wrong for varying mass systems, without giving any evidence, but saying that rockets are one example. Unfortunately, this is one of the most widespread myths I have seen in the physics world. I hate to appeal to my own experience here, but at my job my primary task is to simulate the flight of rockets going into space, and I can tell you for certain that all of our rocket simulations use F=ma and we get the correct answer. The rocket science textbook Spaceflight Dynamics by William E. Weisel proves that F=d(mv)/dt gives the wrong answer for the rocket problem and F=ma gives the correct one.
I think we can find more examples of references that restate the false claim, so the important point is to show that the claim is false. How does Wikipedia instruct users to repudiate sources that contain false information? MarcusMaximus (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...well, it seems to me the best course--to avoid WP:OR--would be to locate respectable sources that state that F=d(mv)/dt is incorrect. If available, they can be linked to and discussed on the relevant talk page. The simplest solution may be something on the order of:
2nd law is F=ma.[refs] This is sometimes rewritten as F=d(mv)/dt for variable mass systems,[refs] but this formula has been characterized as incorrect.[refs]
Well, I have one source in my physical possession, Spaceflight Dynamics by William Weisel. It also turns out that the article on Newton's Laws itself cites two other sources that say F=d(mv)/dt applies only to constant mass systems. See footnote 22[8]. With this in mind, it should be obvious that the equation collapses to F=ma, and I can't see any reason to continue to use F=d(mv)/dt as the emblem for all pages on classical mechanics. I have made posts to this effect on the discussion pages of both Newton's Laws [9] and classical mechanics [10] without any particular reaction from other editors. How do we go about making these changes if people don't respond to the request for discussion? MarcusMaximus (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jim N E Cricket, its another Oregon Collaboration of the Week
Thank you very much for your comments to me regarding the article "Dan Torok".
While I am relatively new here, I have edited and created a few articles including the Anne Garrels article and the one on her husband. I have also contributed to starting the talk on the Spanish language wikipedia article on Colosio, the assassinated Mexican presidential candidate.
I have made what I believe is very strong and valid attempt to justify the creation of that article. I might have started with other articles in following up on the "Otto Zehm" article but chose to start with Torok, a very controversial police officer here (see the Zehm article for more on why he is controversial).
You must not have seen the subsection directly above on my talk page, I was already told about this :( - Anyways, thanks for being so nice about the whole thing, I will go and fix those now. There's gotta be a script or an easier way to re-transclude those AfDs in the future though... Cirt (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a strange situation. I found the article disability etiquette had been deleted while browsing through my deleted contribs. I had done a complicated history merge on it some time back, so all its edits could be in one place. The history merge resulted in the article looking like this, which is the way it was before June 2002. I forgot to revert it to this version before my history merging, which still has problems but is better than the version from six or seven years ago. The old version of the article was on AfD, so it did not get a fair hearing. Therefore I've ignored a few rules and undeleted it. You weren't to know of the old version of the article ... it would've been difficult to spot without checking the history carefully. As you were the closing admin, I've notified you about my undeletion. I'll notify the nominator for AfD and I'll probably improve the article while I'm there. I'll let all comments/flames go to my talk page or the article talk page. Graham8708:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy folks, its time for this week’s edition of Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, great job the last two weeks with Greg Oden & the Hospital red link drive. We had close to ten new hospital articles and two DYKs () plus other improvements to the list itself. So thank you to those who helped out. This week, we have on a sad note Kevin Duckworth, and the Statesman Journal. Duckworth should have plenty of sources so hopefully in tribute we can get his article up to standards. With the SJ, hopefully we can get it above a stub so all three of the top three papers are no longer stubs, and maybe even a DYK and GA like we got from the Register-Guard? Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Hasta la bye bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...disappeared after the 8th. There were accusations that he was a sock. Maybe they were right. In any case, the edits you made should neutralize it to the point that it won't set off flames in Google searches. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i was wondering if we could get the jared reid wikipedia page up again . He is a significant person .I will continue to work on the page and get more facts in it such as games reffed .... I would appreciate it if you could reinstate this page thanks
I think I'll propose that for the site logo - I much prefer it to "The Free Encyclopedia", and it ranks up there with "Wikipedia: a community, not a crazy den of pigs"[11]. EyeSerenetalk09:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Clarification on Pseudoscience Category Arbitration
I was reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt because I came to the WP page where the article would be expecting to find one there. Can you tell me why the resolution to delete was made?
The votes were 6 deletes to 4 keeps and in other cases like this I've noticed the mod normally calls the result 'no consensus' and allows editors to continue to build the article (eg. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Makedonsko_Devoiche). I'm not convinced one way or the other as to the notability of the article (especially since I can't see it) but the AfD page makes me suspect this has been unfairly deleted. Donama (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I closed that article as delete because I'm not a vote counter...6 to 4 or 9 to 1, if the there was a sound deletion rationale (in this case: no reliable sourcing to meet notability guidelines) that was not suitably addressed or refuted, deletion is prudent. Furthermore, one of the "keeps" was a sock of a banned editor, and banned editors are prohibited from participating.
I keep seeing your helpful vandalism reverts and other attention across my WatchList, its about time I did this (I was about to use the Anti-vandal barnstar, but I don't agree with it being named after RickK --besides, the classics never die):
Quick work removing the Vandalism on my User talk page. I think he followed me there from 2008 Zagreb bombing. That was the first vandalism to my user page and the first template vandalism I've actually seen live. Thanks again. Random8900:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that's the second stupid mistake I've made today; I didn't realize it was in his userspace (apprently I missed the fact that the "article" started with the word USER). I think I need to stop patrolling new pages before noon. Thanks for catching it, and sorry. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, why was the page 7th Altrincham Boys Brigade deleted? I think it is diabolical that this page has been deleted. I used to be in the Boys Brigade and found it very interesting reading this page and its UNIQUE idenitity. I suggest that this page is a reinstated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.163.243 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scientizzle, I'm new to Wikipedia so just looking for some help, the page "Peter Joseph" has been deleted, as has the discussion page adjoined. I have read that this maybe a pseudonym but it should at least require a redirect to my thinking? Any help would be appreciated - I don't want to go to the hassle of creating a page to only have it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spadeboi (talk • contribs) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I find it rather rude of you to post that message to somone who clearly knows about 3RR, and especially when their last edit was 21 hours ago, and the only revert in the last 24 hours. Maybe a more friendly note might have been more appropriate explaining that you think they should possibly take a break from the article for a bit as they've made a few reverts over the past couple of days? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might note this revision which clearly states, "as noted on talk page, inclusion is clearly not supported...I will, however, not revert further". And perhaps you might note further that lasttwo sections of the talk page indicate that the attempted insertion of certain text was highly opposed, and the editor most active in doing so (despite consensus) was blocked upon my AN3RR notice. I think I know what I'm doing... — Scientizzle23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle, please accept my apologies. I was in the middle of sorting out the edit war at Creationism, with editor names that I did not recognize (I don't believe that you and I have ever interacted?). I saw that one of the editors, Hassandoodle (talk·contribs), had already been blocked for 3RR, and it seemed only fair to caution the other editor in the dispute, which was yourself. It was only after the fact, that I noticed that you were an administrator, which means that my notice was unnecessary. If I would have seen that ahead of time, I would indeed have given you a more personalized message rather than a template. Sorry! My main goal, as I hope is evident from the message that I did post, was to ensure that you weren't blocked. However, I clearly made a mistake here in how I cautioned you, and for that I do apologize. --Elonka04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parafon Forte a candidate for the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. Please click here to support or comment on the nomination. You are getting this message as a WikiProject Pharmacology Member
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But why do you find it depressing? 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
All the stuff that needs doing...makes me wish I could write gooder. I've been here too long without doing any more than cleaning up after the cranks. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message. I consulted with two other users before writing that, and the funny part is, we all misinterpreted it, so it was a big laugh on us when I showed them your message on my talk page and we re-read your comment. Thank you for being so conscientious. Mike H.Fierce!02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are fine.
I have tried my level best with no success, to furnish the reference for the last section of this article but I can swear upon that all information provided are true and factual. Can you suggest any solution?
Thank you in anticipation.--Asikhi (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kleptoplasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether to respond to our friend here. He doesn't seem to get it and is only rapidly devolving it into a ID/Evolution debate.--Loodog (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You speedily deleted this article a while back. I don't have access to the deleted article. I would like to make sure that it really was A3 worthy. You see, there's a whole bunch of stubs that are being created along the lines of this template. Are you sure it was nothing to work with? Thanks,--brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, at AN/I.(section); (diff). You and Vassyana (CC'd) were the blocking admins. Thank you for your efforts back then, and for any you may see fit to undertake now. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow or other I can't find any discussion in response to my request on the topic ban at AN/I. It seems to have disappeared in other updates (if it's still listed as unresolved should this happen?). I wrote as I promised to do and concluded by suggesting the topic ban be lifted. I said it could be swiftly reinstated if needed, that I had definitely learned a lesson and would respond to community concerns. Could you let me know what's happening. Thanks Mccready (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for chiming in. (Yes, the discussion was archived.) You've stated in the past that you've learned a lesson. Then this happened. (There have also been episodes of WP:GAME... admin shopping (repeatedly, for block reductions), canvassing, "interesting" IP edits, and posting to AN/I that I'd ignored a message on my talk page that you had posted a mere half hour before.) Sorry if this seems bluntly put... but why should we trust you at this point? Since the sanctions were imposed for a longstanding pattern of poor behavior, why wouldn't a reasonable person ask that you demonstrate the ability, over a fairly sustained period -- as Guy put it -- "to engage properly with those of an opposing point of view"? There are plenty of articles to do that. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this user wants to defend the acupuncture page and his extreme views rather than improve the project. Despite acknowledging my good edits he has failed to revert his reverts. McCready 123.200.168.233 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The facts say otherwise:
Several days ago, I addressed your recent edits at the article's talk page.
My "extreme views" are completely in line with notable sources such as the WHO and AAMA, according to sources in the article. Anyway, it doesn't matter what my views are if I wear my Wikipedia hat, instead of some sort of advocacy hat, when I edit. Which I do, as the record shows. (Compare to your likely COI and other misadventures.)
I won't engage further on this topic unless an admin indicates to me that your sanctions are actually under reconsideration. I believe they were justified, and have no wish to keep arguing. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mccready. You know perfectly well that my words, on- or off-wiki, have nothing to do with the question I and others have posed: when you say you've learned a lesson, how do we know you can be trusted? I suspect the reason you insinuate stuff about me is because you don't have a satisfactory answer to that simple question. Instead, you seek to portray me as some kind of extremist (which is false equivalence, or more like WP:KETTLE)... and guess who, alone, can save the acupuncture article from said extremism, if only he were taken off the leash....
So, sorry dude, but you're not going to succeed in sliming me with bullshit accusations of COI. Nor are your inaccurate assertions that I don't respond to your edits, or that nobody ever warned you of an indefinite ban, etc. etc., going to fly. Nice tries, but the plain facts contradict you, and all you do by ignoring them is portray yourself as (at best) dense, and (at worst) untrustworthy. None of which advances your cause in the least, of course.
Scientizzle, sorry for the argument here. I shouldn't have responded initially at all; Mccready took it as baiting, whereas I just wanted you to be fully aware that this guy is a bad actor. Still, Mccready seems convinced that I'm his nemesis or something, so his attacks were bound to come out somewhere. Back to our usual programming. Happy editing! -- Backin72 (n.b.) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)(addenda - 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry guys...inclement weather+pending manuscript deadline+upcoming holiday vacation=Scientizzle has to sign off for the rest of the year.
I should be back around the New Year, but I'm not sure exactly when. I hate to leave this dispute unmediated, but I have to. In the meantime, here's a few things:
McCready, please consider your topic ban still in effect. The fact that your ANI post was generally missed is unfortunate, but we shouldn't consider anything to have substantially changed in this regard.
That said, upon my return, I'll be willing to work with you in some capacity to get a fair and clear re-evaluation of the topic ban as you wanted. You are, of course, welcome to pursue this in the mean-time without my input (i.e., start a new thread on WP:ANI).
Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if you could take a moment and voice you opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank you in advance and thank you for your contributions to the College Football Project. Rtr10 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
Welcome back. I'd be grateful if you could focus on this [14] when you get a chance. If you still have doubts please contact me. My point was and remains that any ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you say when? And why would not the option of reinstating with a statement that ban will be reintroduced if necessary not be quick and simple?Mccready (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
December 11, 2008, ANI discussion of topic ban violation, with a request to lift that didn't really go anywhere...
...but further discussion occured at on my talkpage
...and led to Mccready's independent topic ban review, which closed on December 20, 2008, clearly supporting the topic ban
Notes
Mccready has made statements such as:
"I think we'd all be doing the project a favour to focus a lot more on content...I have learnt a lesson and will be responsive to community concerns" (13 December 2008)
These are good statements, indicating a willingness to follow community conventions
...However, Mccready has made, since the 13th, comments that don't fit the spirit of "focus on content" (i.e., "He is an extremist acupuncturist")
"Scientizzle has also said my recent edits, reverted by Jim, were ok" (20 December 2008)
I was referring to the edits that were made in violation of said topic ban. I had stated "the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and asking why those edits were reverted isn't far out of line)"
This (permalink) was the detailed response from the reverting party
I find that Mccready is overstaing what I meant by my comment; the edits in question weren't overtly disruptive and Mccready had expressed a keen interest in a review of the topic ban, thus I chose not to block for the topic ban violation in the interest of giving Mccready a chance. I was not endorsing the content of the edits pre se, just noting that they were not obviously disruptive. [The ultimate utility of such edits is just outside of my current topical comfort range.] I don't think Mccready's interpretation is in any way bad faith, I just want to set the record straight regarding this.
The topic ban has been supported by a large number of editors, over various threads, with different editing alignments. What's clear is that Mccready's topic ban has been supported by a number of editors that would, presumably, generally agree with the content ideas behind Mccready's editing pattern, but disagree with specific edits and behavioral choices. Enough of a pattern was established that near-unanimous frustration was noted.
Outside of three September edits, Mccready did not edit from mid-May (just after the topic ban extension) to late November. On December 4, Mccready edited via IP at acupuncture. Mccready's overall mainspace edits during the topic ban (a few dozen prior to the IP edits, a greater amount since) seem to be generally positive and uncontroversial.
Conclusion
The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand. Given the general evidence and tone of the community, I think it would be inappropriate (toobold) to overturn it. To respond specifically to Mccready's suggestion that "any ban can quickly be reinstated if needed", I do not think a few weeks of generally-good editing (with a questionable use of IP editing on acupuncture) are yet enough to re-earn the community's depleted confidence and merit such an action.
That said, I want to offer at least a bone silver lining...
Mccready's general pseudoscience probation ends May 7, 2009. If there are no further incidents between now and then, and a history of civil, productive interactions, I would be happy to end the topic ban myself. I cannot see removing the topic ban without a few solid months of quality editing demonstrates a responsiveness to community concerns. — Scientizzle03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd be grateful if you would address the central problem. I didn't have the chance to defend myself adequately before the ban was instituted and would like now to do so. A central argument of the blocking admin was my alleged "bad" block history. When I pointed out the nature of the blocks the admin refused to discuss it. Thus my "bad" history became an uncontested given. Also the "community" who commented were by no means unanimous and we led by those who believe in their pseudoscience practices and do not like my scientific editing. I'm not sure why you raised the issue of JB being an extremist. There is no contradiction in focusing on content and in pointing this out in context. Are you also suggesting that my pointing out that JB is an extremist was not a relevant factor? Thanks and your look at the truth about my "bad" block history would be appreciated. Mccready (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, just when I think I can retire, along come some attacks and outing to deal with. What a lovely site this is -- it just keeps on giving. I just redacted some material above. Wikipedia is not a place to attack people based on their affiliations, whether those affiliations are "mainstream" or not (see:WP:NPA). Such attacks are absolutely toxic to elevated discourse and a meeting of minds. I changed my username (and have just about vanished from WP) precisely because of attacks like this from Mccready and ScienceApologist. My user page (like that of others who have had similar experiences) is clear that I don't want any personal info on WP anymore, so I'm redacting it above; "outing" is absolutely not ok.
And thanks, Mccready, for showing once again what a class act you are when you don't get your way. In that light, I'm sure Scientizzle will have no regrets at all over lifting your ban. (Don't say I didn't warn you, Scientizzle -- good analysis above, but you didn't explicitly mention the crucial point Guy made[15][16]: how does this editor act with people with whom he has major disagreements? You've just seen a taste. In light of this, may I suggest that rather than unilaterally revoke the ban, you first raise the issue on ANI?) --User:Backin7207:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to respond to all the relevant points...
Mccready, please respect the wishes of Backin72 (talk·contribs) and do not refer to identifying specifics.
I brought up your "extremist" comment above precisely because after a plea to "focus on content" you made a specific assertion that focused on your interpretation of another editor's point-of-view. You can't have it both ways...This should be clear: if every editor's content contributions are to be judged on the merit of those contributions, bringing in value judgements such as yours detract from that stance.
Furthermore, as this is a collaborative project, quality content contributions are insufficient. It is necessary that all editing accept the cooperative nature of Wikipedia and not undermine the encyclopedia-building process.
Also, your continued reference to others' editing habits and behaviors ignores the basic issue that this topic ban is about your editing patterns. Nothing will sway me from my position except a demonstration that your editing patterns have sufficiently changed.
Your block history is a mixed bag; some were questionable. It didn't, however, weigh much in my consideration above. You have a long history of aggresive interactions that have made negative impressions on a variety of editors, many of whom I know likely view acupuncture (and such) as skeptically as you do. For posterity, however: your analysis of your block history left out two 2006 blocks for 3RR & "Wikistalking". Also, MastCell's "edit-warring" block, though it was reduced in time, appear to be appropriate. Thus, prior to the 03:42, April 28, 2008, block by Jossi--later extended by Vassyana & me (in conjunction with the established topic ban)--there are at least four prior blocks with arguable merit. As I implied, blocks in 2006 don't much concern me; that the editing behaviors that appear to have precipitated those blocks has not sufficiently abated is the crux of the issue. You must now demonstrate to everyone that you've moved beyond these disruptive patterns and that it's worth loosening any restrictions.
Please note that I'm not interested in any in-depth discussion of each and every entry in your block log--it's well out of my interests to dig through the edits of 2006 to evaluate all of these actions. They're beside the point: the community's patience with you has been exhausted and you need to earn it back.
I'll stand by my pledge to lift restrictions in May if I'm convinced of a demonstrable pattern of collegial editing with clear content improvements. But you need to put up or shut up: if you've "learnt a lesson and will be responsive to community concerns", that should be readily visible in your interactions over the next few months.
(undent)Thanks for admitting the block history does not weigh for much in this discussion. Unfortunately it was this very history which was the basis for the decision. So, what we are now left with is my "aggression". My "aggression" is much less than many. And, more to the point, I have not damaged articles. Surely a topic ban is instituted to prevent damage to articles is it not? The user you refer to who has now morphed attacks me personally. The point of me describing him the way I did was to show exactly the style of editing we have to contend with in relation to him. He sneered at me and claimed the list of diseases he treats was the same as the WHO list. I pointed out the error. He refused to acknowledge. This is what happens time after time with him and I get the blame. Not only does he not acknowledge his error but he decides to morph. My use of the word extremist was not a personal attack, is was an attack on his logic, his editing style, his refusal to acknoweldge error, and the damage he does to the project. [personal attack redacted] It is easily arguable that these behaviours taken as a whole indeed deserve the label I used. I'm not hoping to have it both ways at all. In fact my comment was precisely on "content contributions" - a pattern of reverting well sourced material which does not serve his POV.
As I said above with are now left with my "aggressive" "editing pattern" many months ago which precipitated this. My edit summaries at the time noted I was pressed for time and was happy for the material I inserted to be reworked. The material was well sourced, had been removed repeatedly and left a very significant bias in the artile. Yes I did wrong and have acknowledged that repeatedly. Leaving aside the material from 2006 which you seem to concur with, I do not believe this incident establishes a "pattern". I would ask you to reconsider. Do you seriously believe lifting the topic ban would be a detriment to the project? Even one of my detractors made the comment, not necessarily one I agree with, "To be fair to Mccready, he's just hot-blooded and wears his emotions on his sleeve". Again this was not about edits to articles, it was about talk pages. I ask you to reconsider.Mccready (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken into consideration every one of the points you've offered, and I feel I've given you a fair shake. The reason you haven't been site-banned is because it's clear that, despite clear disruption, you have had some positive content contributions. I can only reiterate: the community has lost its trust in you to edit responsibly on certain topics and you need to earn that back. That's the deal--take it or leave it. Please start by redacting the personal attack directly above regarding another editor's intellect. — Scientizzle19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)
Dear Scientizzle
Please let me set out for you the points on which we may disagree. If we can handle these logically and efficiently one by one I think it would clear this up. Before I do, I thank you for again for acknowledging that the block history is questionable and was not the primary basis for your action. This is a huge leap forward for me – finally someone in wikipedia has examined my block history objectively. And, no I don’t claim to be entirely innocent as the blocking admin accused me of believing I am.
But a larger issue remains for the project which unfortunately has not been addressed: The weight given to scientific sources on acupuncture. Acupuncturists want to highlight a tiny minority of studies (usually of poor quality) saying acupuncture is or MIGHT be effective and should be studied more. They insist on placing this type of information first and in the lead. They edit war in concert to achieve their aims. Opposed to this are the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective which they delete and refuse to acknowledge in the lead. If we spent more time on that issue we would be doing the project the greater service.
However, here are the points for clearing up (thanks for taking the time on the block log and I hope you can take the time on these), though a quick reponse on point 6 may save time.
The block log was cited as THE major reason when the ban was requested and then cited again and again in the discussion. Given you are the first admin to look at the block log objectively (the original admin having refused), in order for the original decision to stand surely there needs to be evidence of damage to articles. Such damage has not been demonstrated, though I have confessed to edit warring on the side of science. My memory may be faulty but I think I was blocked while the discussion took place. Hardly fair.
You closed the discussion on the topic ban saying there was community consensus. I contend there was no consensus, particularly because users like Gwen Gale explicitly based their support on the block history. Ned Scott opposed, suggested RfC but then changed citing the block log. OrangeMarlin and Science Apologist spoke against and if memory serves correctly they weren’t alone. Eldereft spoke on my behalf. And henrik wanted a 1RR. QuackGuru (a chiropractor) did not support. MastCell also cited the block log as his primary reason. This is not consensus.
This issue was fueled via a vendetta by some acupuncturists and chiropractors (not all) whose aim is to paint those articles in the best possible light. Thus the “consensus” to the extent it existed was mostly by vendetta – not a good basis for rational decisions. As soon as a chiropractor suggested a topic ban three other altmeders jumped in and agreed. Once again I don’t claim to be blameless, I only say a topic ban is inappropriate and actually damages the project. Other editors have made similar statements supporting my science editing.
Given the centrality of this vendetta I think you should look into how it actually damaged the project. Saying that your knowledge of acupuncture is not sufficient can be remedied by looking even briefly at the edits leading to my block. It was an edit war where well sourced material was being removed, and the article was biased, particularly in the lead.
You have not addressed the purpose of a topic ban.
You have not addressed the question as to what harm to the project would ensue if the ban was lifted. You also need to weigh this, I hope you will agree slim possibility, against the excellent edits I have done (new articles, introduction of new research from Science and Nature magazines etc).
In saying I have to learn to be a collegiate editor, you virtually accuse me of not being able to discuss. Check my extensive discussion on the acupuncture page to see this is wrong. Check even the positive comments made even by my opponents. Check my recent contributions to articles nominated for feature status. I hope then that you can modify or clarify your position.
Finally, on a personal note I think your choice of words that you would throw me a bone was deeply offensive, as if I am a dog. I'm sure you did not mean to be so rude, but would appreciate you being more careful in future.Mccready (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels here. Every point you keep bringing up, I've considered already. Briefly,
My opinion of the validity of your block log entries needn't be matched by anyone else--it's inherently subjective. It is my opinion, also, that your block log has multiple valid entries; your recent topic ban violation could have reasonably added to that list and I doubt few would have disagreed. Further harping on this point will not convince me. Furthermore, as I read the discussions, your edit-warring and disruptive interactions with fellow editors were primary concerns beyond your block log.
Your statement is factually incorrect. Here nobody registered any further defense against the initial 2008 topic ban (which clearly demonstrated a consensus that your behavior was disruptive). The initial topic ban discussion featured a variety of inputs, some suggesting 1RR or shorter durations or other limitations, and some wanting a full community ban. Yes, alt-med-sympathetic editors with whom you've clashed wanted something harsher, but plenty of others who are clearly not in this camp registered frustration and support for the intial topic ban. Eldereft argued early for "1RR or temporary article ban" and you specifically rejected henrik's attempts to levy a 1RR, directly leading to his statement of "no objections" to your block by Jossi. OrangeMarlin and Science Apologist never spoke on your behalf in those two discussions. Ned Scott initially opposed, weakened his stance, and eventually came to the conclusion: "I have no reason to oppose this". Consensus does not require unanimity, and the general trend of those involved, even those some might consider "on your side", was that your behavior was inappropriate and needed to be stopped. Ultimately, "a topic ban on all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for no less than six months" was the widely preferred option. The subsequent re-evalutation resulted in the extension of the topic ban precisely because your behavior was even more disruptive during the requested review.
Addressed above.
Addressed above.
The purpose of the topic ban is, self-evidently, to prevent you from further disrupting the editing process on those pages.
I am unconvinced that you would not disrupt the editing process on those pages should the ban be lifted right now.
I didn't say you have to "learn" anything, I stated that, in order for me to be convinced that disruption is unlikely to occur, you need to demonstrate "collegial editing with clear content improvements". I don't see any unfounded accusations in my actual statements above, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that I've
Additionally,
To "throw someone a bone" is an idiom, a causual turn of phrase not meant as an attack.[17] Nonetheless, I've changed the phrase above accordingly.
Recent discussion showed no community interest in removing the topic ban early. In order for me to go against this, I must feel confident that I'm making a good decision that would be a net benefit to the project. Little in this discussion has assuaged my concerns.
Finally, If your next edit to my talk page isn't to redact the personal attack mentioned above, I will consider our discussion over and I will retract my offer to possibly lift the restrictions in May...You don't have to like other editors, but I won't tolerate personal attacks, particularly on my talk page. — Scientizzle18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess by your comment "Game's over." you refer to the fact that in the intervening 10 days or so I had forgotten to apologise. Please assume good faith. When I wrote the above, for which I thank you for taking care of, I was afraid that if I made the edit myself I would be accused of a violation. I completely forgot to apologise and I do so now. I will address your reasoning above, like I say, when I get time.Mccready (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On January 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article G350.1-0.3, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On January 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article JUPITER trial, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dear Scientizzle
I refer to your post of 16 January and mine of 28 January 2009.
The block log (now substantially discounted in its weight) was indeed given as prima facie evidence with a large amount of weight. It's not "harping" to ask you to acknowledge this. Many people "voted" based on the block log and said so.
You are correct I misread OrangeMarlin and Science Apologist. However the fact remains that given you are the first wikipedia Admin to point out that the block log is as it is, they perhaps should be contacted for their revised opinion. It is no longer valid to assume they have the same opinion. Likewise for Ned Scott, Eldereft (who I recall cooperative exchanges with) and henrik.
You have consistently failed to address the simple question, which I now ask you again to address: Why not lift the ban and replace it immediately if, in your words, I "disrupt the editing process"? The balance of probabilities and the possible and remote trade off which should be made in favour of the project is that I can make a real contribution to improve the acupunture article as VirtualSteve suggested.
May I also ask you to consult with VirtualSteve before you respond. He said on 14 December, while you did not have time to focus on this,
"I have a feeling with your obvious energy you will come back (in terms of this topic ban) in a couple of weeks, wiser and even more likely to add to the topic rather than the drama."
On February 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Visna virus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The User:Tool2Die4 has presented this to be a dispute of two editors. When he warned both of us I have ceased editing alltogether as a way of preventing edit-waring done by Pietru il-Boqli. Regretfully enough Pietru il-Boqli continued and removed my sourced edits. ANI has not produced any result because Pietru il-Boqli stands firmly on excluding my sourced edits (he sees them as POV, natturaly).
I have proposed on that ANI discussion that the article would be reverted to the last edit of Tool2Die4, as he edited the article before Pietru il-Boqli and me too.
Why has Pietru il-Boqli been "rewarded" with locking the article at his last edit?
I am sad to report that discussing with Pietru il-Boqli is very difficult because of his insults and alludions. That was also confirmed by Tool2Die4.
When looking at the history of blocking Pietru il-Boqli has been known for simmilar offences.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on these issues. Thanks!
First, I interpret the recent history of Maltese (dog) and Talk:Maltese (dog) to indicate that multiple editors have been participating in what amounts to an edit war with ample slinging of bad-faith accusations. I've not parsed whose edits have been more or less appropriate, and I have no real interest to do so...nationalistic editwarring is so painfully tedious.
Second, I feel no need to apoligize for the version I protected, and it certainly doesn't endorse the current version as correct. If this is the Wrong Version, that can be simply corrected by working out which version is correct on the talk page and getting the page unprotected, or using {{editprotected}} to fix obvious errors. (Also, note that the article was protected on yourlast edit.)
I suggest that the article would be placed under the autoconfirmed level of protection, throught the history of the article it has been subject to a lot of IP users with no real contribution to the encyclopaedia. -- Imbris (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On February 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Visna virus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you could be so kind to acknowledge that you have tryed to mediate the content dispute. Two editors need to "sponsor" the RfC. Thanks a lot. -- Imbris (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you mind your own business? Stop acting like Wikipedia is legitimate. Anybody who treats this website like it's fact has a distorted reality. At least I'm not a sycophant like you are. Maybe your account should be locked so you could actually have a real life. I'll do whatever I want, I'm not scared of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighat (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If San Diego is upset that I dare desecrate the Mana from Heaven that is Wikipedia, so be it. People who take this site way too seriously need to turn off their computers and get out in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighat (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit you make a fine argument; people who can't be bothered to display a modicum of civility certainly have the market cornered on philosophical sensibility. Perhaps I should redirect my apparent obsequiousness towards such a user? The light! I see it! — Scientizzle22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wandered in after reading about a certain sandbox holocaust, and I feel I should warn you Brighat, this user once broke the entire Wikipedia, so please don't risk it again. You are playing with fire here, and we'll all get burned. Scientizzle, please forgive this intrusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja08:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I work for PatientsLikeMe and so want to avoid any conflict of interest by doing substantial edits to the article. However since it first went up we have published several research studies and been mentioned in a variety of journals including Lancet Neurology, Nature Medicine, AMIA, etc (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme). I would be most grateful to have some additional input to the article from objective 3rd parties. Happy to answer any questions at pwicks@patientslikeme.com, I'm also easily Googlable! Thanks,--PaulWicks (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scientizzle. I wanted to let know that I support the statement you made on Shamwow86's userpage and at SPI. I brought up the sockpuppetry case, not simply because he was obviously Creamy3, but because he was starting to engage in deceptive behavior again. (Being deceitful about his past, his contributions, canvassing, being dishonest when directly questioned, etc. etc.). Like you, I think that many of his contributions to article space have been good, especially dealing with lesser known films and personalities. And if he ever could learn to stop the MySpacey junk, the sockpuppetry and the other immature behavior, then he could be a benefit WP. In other words, if he grew up and treated the project work seriously, I would also approve of giving him a fresh start. Unfortunately, the creation of his latest sock yesterday - does this sound familiar? - just so he could vote for himself shows he doesn't get it yet. Unfortunately. — CactusWriter |needles10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was going to point out that per this diff, and subject matter edited, that User:Matthew Francis seems to be our boy. I was going to say that if he was behaving that despite the block evasion perhaps we could watch and give him a chance, but unfortunately it looks like he is socking again. Katr67 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I was so surprised taht there was already a Creamy3 post here that I forgot to say: "Hey Scientizzle, long time no see! I hope things are well, and note that I might, just might reconsider your proposal. Cheers!" Katr67 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've known about him since he popped up after Shamwow86 was blocked. I've been watching him as well as his other two open socks -- no particular problems so far -- so let's see whether he starts to cause trouble or not. — CactusWriter |needles07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. I haven't been around much, but I've checked in on this occasionally. I expect the subject is savvy enough to have seen all our comment, so I'm sure he'll take note. I have no current intention to block Matthew Francis (talk·contribs), because the account doesn't appear to have been at all disruptive, or Sally77 (talk·contribs), because that account hasn't edited since its creation. I'm treating this as a de facto"one last chance" that was requested. If, however, there's any indication that Mr. Francis slips into his ol' patterns of "tomfoolery", I won't hesitate to act as needed. It would be to everyone's benefit if we can move past this without further incident. — Scientizzle16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it--I appreciate your edit. I'm happy to let stupid insults remain as a testament to a vandal's immaturity, but blanking this page prevents proper communication & collaboration, so I prefer that sort of nonsense be reverted. — Scientizzle21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is inappropriate -- at best it's trolling, at worst it's a death threat. The recent trolling efforts and attempts to add self-promotional content are over the line. For me, it is the third strike. I will support a block or a complete ban from WP. — CactusWriter |needles06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Mr. Francis, what was your goal here? I'm inclined to consider this trolling myself, considering you are (presumably) the author behind various uselessprovocations and other nonsense directed towards just me. Examplesaboundofyouactinglike a completejerk to many other editors. Then there's other nonsense, trying to promote your YouTube videos, and creating pages for your non-notable friends. I think it's clear that although you appear to have broad knowledge of some of the less-appreciated elements of the film industry, your interactions are, on the whole, too disruptive to tolerate any longer. Please find a new hobby. — Scientizzle16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am slowly familiarizing myself with "recent" events related to the homeopathy article. The last time I visited the homeopathy article it was just about the time when "Dr.Jhingade" first arrived and I have missed all of the intervening events related to his participation at Wikipedia. Thanks for the link you provided that provides insight into the difficulty of dealing with this particular source of frustration. I think some people have a faith in the efficacy of homeopathy that may come from experiences such as those reported here, experiences in which self-resolving conditions improve during the use of a homeopathic treatments. My current hypothesis is that "Dr.Jhingade" has, through his personal experiences, developed a strong faith in the efficacy of homeopathy. In my experience it is all too easy for such people to discount scientific studies of homeopathy that do not show positive results. Sometimes those who have had positive personal experiences with homeopathy will simply say, "Well, those studies with negative results may not have been done correctly. They were probably performed by skeptics who do not know how to properly treat patients homeopathically". I'd be interested to know if in your experience it has ever been possible to engage "Dr.Jhingade" in discussions of these kinds of issues. From what I've seen he is just not very communicative in the sense of being able to maintain a discussion thread where there is a give and take of ideas. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I would be honestly surpised if this is the last sock of Dr. J that shows up 'round here." <-- it seems like most observers are resigned to that conclusion. I wonder what would happen if we tried to restrict editing by "Dr.Jhingade" to only one of his user talk pages. He could be free to suggest additions/changes to articles and discuss his proposals on his talk page. It would be a form of mentoring. Would he accept such a restriction and mentoring or would he simply continue to go to other pages and upset people who would prefer not to talk to him and read his contributions? This approach seems similar to what you tried before, but it might be possible to formalize it and get him to agree. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated JUPITER trial, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JUPITER trial. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Homeopathic dilutions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Article appears to be original research/synthesis to advance a position
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
