Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 14 February 2008

Misplaced Pages is full of people with no courage

Nobody helped me. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that nobody cares enough to help me when the going gets rough. Administrators are cowards. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of it, you lack the balls to say Misplaced Pages is full of people with no balls. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You got it. No telling what mealy-mouthed administrator will decide that it's profanity and block me for 72 hours. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More people help you than anyone I can think of, excluding Jimbo. A good example of how impossible it is to get at the facts here. Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, Art, you confuse me. What "facts"? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone reading this knows the fact that you have a lot of fans, in this section for instance, but why does this section start out saying "nobody cares enough to help me when the going gets rough?" Art LaPella (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I find it very hard to get help. That is, administrators are scared to trust me when I say I'm being harassed and tell the people who are harassing me to back off. Sure, Art, I have my fans. But sometimes I feel like I'm being treated as Science's Rottweiler on Misplaced Pages. They let me do the mean and nasty stuff and hide behind me, all the while scolding my "incivility" and "ill-tempered behavior". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"...nobody..."? Not even Shot info, below? Is that what you meant by "I don't get any responses unless I make sweeping generalizations"? Art LaPella (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shot info is more-or-less disengaged from Misplaced Pages administering. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You could go on to redefine what you meant by "nobody cares", to exclude anyone on your side at Talk:Homeopathy, FeloniousMonk, the blocking of Anthon01 and the banning of Ian and his socks, and on down the list. "When the going gets rough" must mean only "when you hoist the Jolly Roger and sail up the Thames". I could write a whole section on everything from the benefits of expressing proposed policy as you did on your user page, to how far we should allow false pseudoscience to make its case and let the reader decide, to academically promoted pseudoscience like feminist studies, to proposing some more realistic Misplaced Pages policies related to civility, to the choice between re-explaining or insulting those who pretend not to understand, to the nature, cause and future of political correctness, etc. etc. etc. But any subproposition of such a discussion is likely to turn out to be another "sweeping generalization". Art LaPella (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

MessedRocker - actually ScienceApologist is doing right here. He was heavily told a month or so back to follow dispute resolution, seek help, and be civil, and he's doing it, and thats appropriate. What we now need to make sure is, he gets the help he's after, if he feels disputes he may have a problem with need outside advice. That's a call any editor's entitled to make. It's likely you didn't know that background is all, so this is more of a "here's whats up" about it. FT2  14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, join the boycott, admins obviously want to look after the article(s), so leave them to deal with the POV pushers. Eventually they will have to be informed (and even involved) and will be on the receiving end (with no editorial support) of the Pushers. Since it's clear this is what they want to do, why not leave them to it. And if you find that when you click on Medicine it is a redirect to Homeopathy and Jimbo gets laughed at by his social circle, then perhaps things will change. But in the mean time, leave it for the precious admins. Shot info (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Misplaced Pages is used by too many people too often at this point to simply let the idiots rule the day. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Look. It's unreasonable for you to go around abusing Misplaced Pages and the process, even if it's in the name of accurate info and science. The entirety of this problem is here and real because you guys are taking the low road despite having a perfectly good content and procedure argument. It's like standing up in a technical conference and calling the current speaker an ass when you spot an error in their paper - even if you're right, it's horrible behavior.

Misplaced Pages can't survive reducing behavior to the lowest common denominator. If you're not willing to fight fair and not abuse the encyclopedia or process, you aren't the right people to defend science here, because you do more harm than good.

I really hope that you (and the other commentators) simply buck it up and stick within community norms of behavior here in fighting the fight. We both need civil behavior and good science input. But we can't have bad behavior, period. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

George, when Jossi "abused" Misplaced Pages and the process, the collective administrators rallied around him and ignored all rules in the name of "Administrators need to be able to abuse the process to help the idiots who aren't administrators". Why should I have to "fight" at all? Why can't you just tell the people who are harassing and violating NPOV to stop it and if they don't just ban them? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with policing the "bad" science input then George. Shot info (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you all leave because you can't stomach being nice to them, it's a sad day, particularly for you. But it's your choice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try at the amateur reverse psychology. In case you haven’t noticed, editors are volunteers here – so good luck with looking after those articles you are so anxious to keep the the civil POV pushers on. Shot info (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors are volunteers here, and being rude to them, any of them, is damaging the project. It amazes me that several of you in this topic space so badly didn't get this... Frankly, people would be promptly and summarily fired for behaving this badly in a lab or research group. Please explain to me why you thought you had to behave this way here on Misplaced Pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They would be fired much, much sooner if they were caught pushing junk science from disgusting inaccurate sources. Even you can't argue with that. They would be laughed out of their labs and the entire community would treat them with scorn. Why do you think its already termed fringe science? Baegis (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - excellent points Baegis. George, the real-world is not like Misplaced Pages where civility outweighs content. Shot info (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, you could be the biggest dick in the world, but if you get results and make significant contributions, you are going to be rewarded. People may not enjoy working with you, but if you are good, they look past that fault. You may never rise up high, but you still have a job. If you routinely publish completely crap research, no amount of civility is going to keep your ass from looking for a new job. It's that way in every field. If you don't produce, you could burp candied apples, but thats not going to keep you from getting canned. Baegis (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an administrator. I didn't help you because you didn't ask and I can't keep every damn page on my watchlist (and there are only so many hours in a day). So what's the problem? -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful, Hoary, using profanity is likely to get you blocked for 72 hours. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is? Then perhaps I should have rephrased the first sentence of this. -- Hoary (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. it doesn't bother me, but using profanity did get me blocked for 72 hours. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was out most of last night when the request was made, except to do some (brief) posting. Though busy I will try to help with this if others can't. FT2  14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As was I, and I don't appreciate the implication that I have no courage because I was out with friends. I'll be busy for the rest of today, but let me know what you would like done. I can't really block the user, since he hasn't done anything new since his old block, and a warning seems out of place since he's already been blocked. Try mediation, or an RFC? I know you don't like dispute resolution, and I understand it hasn't really functioned well for you in the past, but perhaps that's something to look into at this point? Besides, looking at the article's talk page (and his recent contribs, in case something got moved) he really doesn't seem to be being that dickish, IMO - he's just trying to balance the article, which is an acceptable goal (much as homeopathy and pseudoscience are bullshit, WP needs to mention that they exist, providing there are sources). ♠PMC♠ 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to discover that I don't get any responses unless I make sweeping generalizations. Dlabtot is not trying to "balance" anything. He basically trolls. Look at his article-edit history for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks scientists in the real labs of the world are nice does not know much about reality.--Filll (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's just more proof how those trigger happy admins are fooled by civil POVpushers. Certain admins mustn't get out much. Shot info (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Double standard

Look, I'm kinda amused that when Jossi violates 3RR we ignore all rules but when I remove wikistalking to a talk page, I'm blocked for edit warring. Double standard, indeed.

I'm lost.

I thought you were blocked for 3RR. Am I wrong about this, or was there a miscalculation (<3), or what?

No, I was blocked for "edit warring": there was no strict 3RR violation. Jossi, however, had a strict 3RR violation. Hmm. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you removed something unpleasant about yourself from a talk page? That's always a no-no. The more obnoxious it is, the more definitely you should leave it. Its visibility incriminates its author. After others have taken a good look at it, if it hasn't been removed and its presence has lost any novelty value, you suggest removal to somebody else and maybe that person removes it.

No, I removed something that was unrelated to my complaint from WP:AE with a note to where it was being refactored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all of this is silly and time wasting. When somebody's a dick, you want to give him treatment suitable for a dick there and then, and not pussyfoot. But that's not the way it's done here, or anyway not the way it's done for lasting effect.

NB I'm not issuing a "Be nice to dicks!" plea. Instead, it's "If somebody's a dick and you want to get rid of him, take the time to figure out a strategy that's not going to blow back and that's going to be effective."

I'd like to see that as policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. I'll check this page a few hours from now. In the meantime, I'd suggest to nobody in particular (but not SA) that if you want to be sarcastic it pays to aim right and self-copyedit before hitting the "Save page". (As an admin, I did enjoy being called "precious", though.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean this WP:GIANTDICK? Shot info (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Having spent some of my time (as a "precious administrator") working out what the complaint was here, it seems that I'm now expected to spend more of it working out what somebody called Jossi did.

Look, this "Misplaced Pages" thing may be fundamentally a crock. But even if it isn't, it's obviously rickety. It's all edited and where necessary run by people who for the most part genuinely believe their every act is for the common good. Many of them are wrong at least some of the time and many of them probably shouldn't be editing at all. We all know this, right? So each of us has various options: (1) attempt to change the rules here, (2) do the best we can here, (3) take a break, (4) migrate to Citizendium (or similar), (4) give up encyclopedia creation, (5) become a troll, or (6) migrate to one or other of the WP-tittle-tattle sites. The first is hugely difficult and I for one can no longer be bothered to try. The last two are for those of a mental age under 15. The second, third fourth and fifth all seem honorable to me. If you choose the second, you're quickly going to run into inconsistencies and apparent or even actual unfairness, for very obvious reasons. You're welcome to complain about individual cases, but in so doing you'd better be very specific and informative (yet terse), because otherwise you come off like a child in a tantrum (even if you have in fact been wronged severely).

So here, I think, is the first of the edits to which others took exception. It moves stuff to the discussion page. I'd agree that the material seems (quite aside from its inherent worth, or lack thereof) to have been out of place. Moving it to the discussion page and providing a link to it wasn't an unreasonable move. But in that heated atmosphere, doing it yourself was inviting trouble. The obvious thing to do is to let people have their say, and perhaps suggest to one or two others that they might move it (or simply delete it).

And then GWH blocked you for 24 hours for "Edit warring: edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement". Yup, you were edit warring. Was the 24 hour block harsh? Maybe. But edit warring is dumb. Granted it can be hard to choose not to edit-war and even for a short time let the other side have the upper hand. But scientists are are particularly accustomed to using their brains and critical faculties: you should be able to avoid this kind of mess and win beyond the short term.

And now, I join some rabbit in recommending AfD/Torsion field to your attention. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. You can choose to analyze what I do till you're blue-in-the-face, but ignoring the activities of POV-pushers is basically the sum result of this kind of "help". ScienceApologist (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi

I have a very limited capacity for remembering who's who among more than twenty WP editors at the most. You (SA) are among those twenty. Till thirty minutes or so ago, "Jossi" (mentioned above) was not. I had a vague feeling that I'd encountered this name somewhere or other; that was the sum of it. But then thirty minutes or so ago I was led to "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'". Fascinating, disturbing stuff. This was all news to me. I regret my earlier ignorance of it. And if anyone reading this comment still hasn't read that article, I recommend it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#More from Cade Wells on El Reg for more. There's a lot to this story. I have interacted with Jossi for years. Here are my thoughts:

1. I have always been concerned that Jossi was much too accommodating of people pushing Fringe POVs. I generally though that he would be a better fit at an encyclopedia that had a sympathetic POV policy rather than Misplaced Pages.
2. I think that someone can be a member of a religious organization and write wonderful, neutral articles about that religious organization to which they belong. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Jossi has been able to do this or not.
3. Jossi has never admitted to being wrong. In a few occasions when I pointed out serious contradictions between what he was saying and what sources were saying, he simply stopped participating in the discussion.
4. Jossi has generally taken a "holier than thou" approach to advising and using administrator tools that I have manifestly not appreciated. I think he takes his role here too seriously, but he is far from the only administrator who has this problem.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness

Well, Pete, frankly, in interests of privacy I've deleted this conversation. If and when you cool down, feel free to e-mail me. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean, if and when my block expires :-) That was almost prescient of you. Anyway, what's private about confirmed sockpuppets? Is there an ANI or something where this is explained, that you could point me to? Pete St.John (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reply at my Talk. I was somewhat aware of that but no, I'll probably never read it all carefully enough :-) however I note the Nov 19 date, which is fairly recent. So you used multiple accounts previously (ab initio that's ok with me), it maybe got somewhat out of hand (plausible), it got attention, and that's pretty much a done deal. I suppose I know what you mean by "cooling down", and I'll take it as only mildly insinuating synonym for "block expiring". Pete St.John (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Torsion field

An article that you have been involved in editing, Torsion field, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Torsion field. Thank you. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

About ainu myth

Hello ... I read one of the articles you wrote. In the article about ainu myth, it is told that there were 6 layers where the gods and the small gods lived. I guess this story came from the '滿洲地誌(1889)' originally. Can you show me where it comes from ? Jtm71 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

I just read this, thank you for bringing it through, I hope it will be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Beware of baiting and trolling

I think it's pretty obvious, again, that this is just another case of baiting/trolling. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on plasma vs. gas @ the sun. =o]

No really, despite prior issues we may have had (not really one to hold grudges), I do appreciate the heads up.

You might take a look @ http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasma4StateMatter.html

It's a rather interesting bit on the various forms of plasma (collisional and/or collisionless), with temperature vs density and examples. I realize it's a bit rough, but I assume they tried to be somewhat correct to within a few OOM?

I agree with you that the corona is plasma (1,000,000+ K). And if the core fusion assumptions are correct (still not sold on it for a few reasons), the core is plasma.

I did some calculations on my talk page (really rough, so I apologize if they're off by a bit; couldn't find any really solid references on some of the temp / density variables, plus it's been a while since I've done a few conversions), and realize that I may have been mistaken about the photosphere (still not sure, for reasons noted on my talk page; sorry for the length, was thinking out loud, too).

The chromosphere, however, I think is a bit more of a gray area, as my calculations pegged it somewhere between a flame (collisional plasma, weakly ionized) and a neon sign (weakly to moderately ionized plasma; again, w/very rough calc #'s & with reference to the link above) on the LLNL chart.

Anywho, just wanted to say thanks for the input. I'd still tentatively stand behind the chromosphere as being plasma (albeit weakly to moderately ionized), if the math is right (and, again, if the LLNL chart isn't too far off, rough as it is). If the photosphere is weakly ionized (innately, or through convection from above / below ), it might still be appropriate to call it plasma.

And, though it holds no weight (I realize that, prior to saying it), it seems "weird" that the core should be plasma, and the corona should be plasma, but the material between may be gases (or less, if the temperature drop continues below the photosphere). Not really clear on why there should be something of a "cold shell" between super-hot shells? Seems odd to me, conceptually.

Anywho, good times. :o) ~Michael Mgmirkin (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the further input on my talk page.

I've added additional peer-reviewed referenced. All or most at some point talk in terms of "chromospheric plasma" and "photospheric plasma," in a few cases, even talking about the photospheric plasma inducing currents in the chromosphere. In some cases, they even talk of solar flares / prominences having roots in the chromospheric or photospheric plasma. Interesting stuff. My talk page section on this seems to be getting rather long with interspersed comments (sorry on the length, but I find it a fascinating topic).

As to your question on "who considers neon signs to be plasma," I hate to be glib about it, but "the people who understand plasmas" (fusion researchers, EE's, plasma physicists, folks who work with it in the lab and report their findings back to the rest of us). Apparently not so much astronomers? IPPEX Glossary of Fusion Terms. The previous link should be relatively non-controversial. And one would think that the folks doing fusion research in the lab would have a good handle on exactly what is or is not classed as plasma. They clearly state a number of examples:

" Plasma - A 'Fourth State of Matter' in which many of the atoms or molecules are ionized. Examples: the sun, fluorescent light bulbs and other gas-discharge tubes, very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space, the earth's ionosphere, parts of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of course fusion plasmas."

Might also wish to refer to the Misplaced Pages article on plasma... Degree of ionization (even weakly ionized gases as low as 1% can display plasma properties) and Temperatures (discusses "hot" / "cold" plasma).

From that article: "A plasma is sometimes referred to as being hot if it is nearly fully ionized, or cold if only a small fraction (for example 1%) of the gas molecules are ionized (but other definitions of the terms hot plasma and cold plasma are common). Even in a "cold" plasma the electron temperature is still typically several thousand degrees Celsius. Plasmas utilized in plasma technology ("technological plasmas") are usually cold in this sense."

Likewise the section on common plasmas notes that fluorescent lights, plasma displays, neon signs and plasma globes are all valid examples of plasma. Time for us to go back to the drawing board?

-Best, Michael Mgmirkin (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and equivocation

I substantially agree with the new item you included regarding equivocation. I might even say that a clear majority of users who log in as me tend on the whole to consider your item on equivocation to be predominately acceptable on many of it's particulars :-) However: I still don't like calling accupuncture pseudoscience. Stuff that is explicable, and explained, in terms of biomechanics and physiology, can still also be described in terms of traditional mysticism. I myself don't talk about circulating Qi but I do talk about (vascular) circulation (of oxidized haemoglobin), and people speaking in both terms can both punch. Also, there are surprises lurking in the general area of pseudoscience. Chriopractic is licensed today in the U.S. (there is a difference between foundational philosophy, in the 19th century, and modern practice) and, this I just learned, homeopaths can be licensed in the U.K. (and there seems to be a substantial difference between "medicaly qualified" practitioners (there is a College of Homeopathy) vs non-medical practioners (who also advertise in the Yellow pages). One might wonder what the college of homeopathy in England teaches. Finally, it would be plainly fair to say: "everyone knows that leeching is bad medicine". But in fact, it's not, is it? You know about leeches? That surprises practically everyone. So sometimes there should, in fact, be some equivocation. Certainly leeching is almost entirely gone, and rightly so, from modern medicine. Nonetheless some modern hospitals do in fact keep some leeches on hand for special cases (just as cocaine is still used as an anesthetic, for topical use in certain eye surgeries). Nothing is easy. Pete St.John (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So at my talk SA asked for clarification regarding the apparent confession of multiple users on my account. No hard feelings; he knows that's not the case, he knows I know he knows, there was no accusation. But the atmosphere is such that he felt compelled to clarify it. That's a bad atmosphere. The atmosphere would not be so bad if we all put the content before the policy and put the truth before victory. We aren't lawyers; we're not being paid to win. There is no judge to rule which of us is right. There sorta is a jury. Sorta. But we have to put the content before victory, and put consensus before ego. Nobody's ego is bigger than mine, but it's served well by achieving consensus (as rare as that may be). Pete St.John (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your IFD comment

Hi. I would appreciate it if you could explain this comment. Are you referring to me? I don't believe I had ever heard of this guy until seeing the article at WP:AN3, which I regularly patrol ... or at least if I had, I didn't pay any attention to him. I have nothing whatsoever to do with this cult - I'm a Christian (Methodist and/or Baptist, depending on what day it is) and about the only things I have in common with this guy are that we have both been to Florida at least once and we both thing that joy and contentment are pretty good ideas. If you are referring to me, what kind of conflict of interest do you think I have? The reason that I nominated that image for deletion is that it is a flagrant violation of Misplaced Pages's image use policy. Google Earth grants permission for non-commercial use, but that permission is insufficient for Misplaced Pages's purposes - many (most) downstream uses of Misplaced Pages content (like about.com and answers.com) are commercial. We only use an image under those circumstances if we could claim fair use even without permission. The only way we could claim fair use for this image is if we were using it to offer critical commentary on Google Earth's quality of service, which obviously we are not. --B (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... thx, I appreciate the clarification. --B (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Link for ArbCom case?

Hi SA, I hesitate to approach you about this but I've been reading through drivel for four hours and haven't been able to find the material I'm looking for, even in the index of closed ArbCom cases, and hoped that since you were involved in the ArbCom you might be willing to tell me where to find it.

The case I'm looking for is a case that supposedly involved you, in which someone named Guy is quoted as saying this:

"This is a symptom of a larger problem, in my view. We have become the number one most important place for proponents of fringe theories and minority views, to get those views across. There exists a significant number of editors whose mission on Misplaced Pages is to skew content to better reflect their POV."

I am interested in anti-rational, anti-scientific forces and movements in society at large, and have only recently begun to notice the extent to which they have overwhelmed Misplaced Pages. I'm not interested in getting into the fray myself, but I do appreciate the efforts of those trying to stem the tide. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; I read the arbitrations plus their talk pages (my brain has turned into mush) but didn't find the quote that was cited (on Misplaced Pages Review). I did find another page, an arbitration enforcement page, that had him saying things that led vaguely in that direction but weren't it exactly. Not that it matters, but I was curious whether that was an isolated quote or whether it was embedded in a more expanded discussion, if so I would have been interested in reading it.

I'm unclear what's going on with What the bleep; everything seems to have stopped there yesterday sometime. Is there some sort of mediation or arbitration action going forward to try to break the impasse? I regret putting my oar in; I thought I was being helpful, but reading back through more of the talk discussion this afternoon (I had only read one archived page backward from the page that was up last week) I can see that you've all been over and over this; all the things I could say have already been said. For whatever it's worth, I like the version you pointed back to, except the lead needed work, but I liked the way that version took the claims and evaluated them one at a time. The present version is hardly an improvement, in my opinion. Woonpton (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for posting about the Sarkar articles. I'm getting ready to dig into those articles and do some serious cleaning/merging/tagging. Definitely a good call on your part. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Block

Having finally completed consideration of the report closed here, I've blocked you for 96 hours. Thatcher had specifically warned you against some of the language used in the reported edit less than a week prior.

Before I could find that you assumed bad faith, I had to check more of the history than just the complaint. Having read the history of Cold fusion, the mediation page, and the ArbComm case, it is clear to be that you did assume bad faith. This behavior has to stop.

You also were incivil. I wish to offer you further advice on how to avoid being incivil. I'm sure that you have heard "comment on the content, not the contributor" before. I'm saying it again, because you aren't doing it. Be more specific say "this change was appropriate because...". Good completions where the ellipsis are would be things like "sources X, Y, and Z each say 'quote from the sources'" or "we don't have any sources to support the alternative". References to POV are not good completions for the ellipsis. GRBerry 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)