Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 7 March 2008

If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template. If I have left a comment for you on your talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) rather than here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. However, if your talk page policy is different than mine, I may follow your preferred style of conversation. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

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

Top heading

For some reason, the automatic archiver may not want to archive this section. —Whig (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Roberts's education

Please provide a citation showing that Chief Justice John Roberts ever attended Sacred Heart. I am reasonably sure that he matriculated to Harvard after high school.

I have tagged it for citation. When you find facts in the encyclopedia you think may be wrong, placing a {{fact}} tag lets other editors know that a citation is necessary. This is preferable to deleting, unless the unverified fact is harmful. —Whig (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sorry about that. I usually don't edit, but from now on, if I see something that's suspect, I'll do that. Take care.

Thanks

I actually have posted on WT:NPOV and RS/N and while the large majority of editors agreed with my understanding of NPOV, the pseudosacience crowd have persisted in pushing their version of NPOV and RS. Filll is always claiming he knows NPOV but I suspect his view is somewhat distorted.Anthon01 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added this for discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith. I think Filll was being sincere. I just laughed when I saw the 98% comment, especially in light of he fact that he was lecturing me on NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had discussions with Filll about NPOV and I find his interpretations quite novel. However, we have had them and do not need to rehash them on WT:NPOV more than needed to allow neutral editors to comment. —Whig (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

Until I found your mention of Bénard cells on Talk:Water memory, I never knew that this phenomenon has a name. Thank you. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations have been made...

Whig, I have asked you directly several times, particularly in the aftermath of your complaining about allegedly "uncivil" behaviour on my part whether you had instituted any action against user DanaUllman for effectively accusing me of lying about whether I was in possession of a journal article that was the subject of discussion. I would be grateful for an answer and you have not placed one on my Talk page whether the question was posed to you.OffTheFence (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How would I institute an action? —Whig (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You're the expert. You did do this but I didn't notice you citing any of DU's actions as part of that, though did say this of me "OffTheFence edits only one article and never provides any verifiable, reliable sources for anything he writes, nor will he agree to follow WP:DR". I don't see any criticisms placed on DU's Talk page equivalent to the ones you have made on mine. I would have thought that accusing another editor of lying was a fairly important breach of civility. Perhaps you think otherwise. OffTheFence (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I never observed DanaUllman to lie. If you'd like to post something yourself, you can do so without my help. —Whig (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have seriously dropped the plot here. It is DU that accused me of lying and which you seem to have no problem with. He said "please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article." I'm not offended, just observing the behaviour pattern. OffTheFence (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the quote you supplied. If you have a complaint, perhaps someone else might be interested. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Help w dilutions

Help with this,if you can. Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Filll better than I. What is he talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to psychoanalyze. —Whig (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought you might understand or have some inkling of his concern. Anthon01 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he is unwilling to admit error, because then he might be confronted with more errors. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are both correct and you are sure you are correct, why not go ahead on that basis?--Filll (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to acknowledge your misstatement. —Whig (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not allowed to disagree with you since that is uncivil. So you can assume you are correct and act accordingly.--Filll (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to disagree civilly. —Whig (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. --Filll (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, okay. Please stop commenting here, in that case. We have nothing further to discuss. —Whig (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to move the topic back and get it back on topic. I suggested that if Filll wants to continue discussing why things are so dangerous, then he do so on user talk pages and not in the NPOV page. I will not engage him there. Anthon01 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no purpose discussing anything at all with Filll, since he makes false statements and does not care to correct them no matter what proof he is shown. —Whig (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am dismayed. Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not dismayed, I am simply content to observe the lack of good faith that exists and not continue to engage with that person. —Whig (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to complete the conversation. You input would be appreciate. I think at some point you just have to ignore what appears to be Filll's baiting off topic discussion. Otherwise the conversation will get diverted like it did yesterday. Anthon01 (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore him unless he makes false statements. If he makes false statements, I will tell him that he is being inaccurate. —Whig (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can leave a short note that says "Answered on your talk page," and answer him there? Just a suggestion. Otherwise I think this will continue indefinitely. Is there a forum to handle this kind of behavior? Anthon01 (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think to go to his talk page at this point would just be treated as an attack. We could give him a notice and an opportunity to correct the record and then go to RfC, perhaps. —Whig (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the RfC2 template, by the way, it's more civil I think. —Whig (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an RfC on the topic or the editor? Anthon01 (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC2 would be a user RfC, if that becomes necessary to deal with ongoing disruption. —Whig (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are hardly one to try to get me to do anything...

Since you have been the victim of no less than three RfCs which you have ignored, I think you need to find someone else who hasn't been as sullied as you to ask me to be more civil. Lets say someone who has no prior history with these conflicts. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Various substances on toast

Yeah, seems likely. I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to make a sockpuppetry case though. It looks like Poupon might have quit Misplaced Pages, and these new socks are his/her revenge? Ah well, I'm just glad they finally blocked the IP! That was getting ugly for a minute! hehehe --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin oversight

What needs deleting? Keilana| 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether it needs deleting or not, I don't know for sure. is an unfounded accusation of sock puppetry and purports to out a user. —Whig (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dilutions

At 23:53, 5 March 2008, Vickers said, "To get a ten-fold dilution 10X you would need to add 9ml of water to 1 ml sample (10ml final)." Doesn't 9 ml dilutant to 1 ml mother tincture create 1x? Anthon01 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Filll (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't his statement incorrect? Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9:1 is a ten fold dilution. 99:1 is a hundred fold dilution. Homeopaths use C though (is that tincture?) and that is a different nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9:1 is 1X. 10X is 9:1 repeated 10 times. Anthon01 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a different nomenclature. The homeopaths don't use dilution terminology but a counting nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

X here means 10, like the Roman numeral. So 10X would actually mean 10^10. C means 100, and LM means 50,000. —Whig (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The homeopathic C, D and X scales are logarithmic scales, something like the pH scale for acidity, or the Richter scale for earthquakes, or the decibel scale for sound levels, etc. This will all be explained more carefully in the more advanced article I am writing with Peter Morrell. And the fact that so many are confused tells me that a more advanced article is needed. Even many of the sources on the internet including homeopathic sources are wrong, so we need to do this correctly and set things on the right path.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

D and X are the same, incidentally. —Whig (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MC

Point taken. Since it's good enough for User:Vanished user, it's good enough for MC. Dreadstar † 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have said this, seeming to confirm it... Dreadstar † —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not confirming anything, I don't have any knowledge of his actual identity. —Whig (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. You may note that ScienceApologist has continued to revert edits of both MC and TT http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mpemba_effect&diff=196470536&oldid=195705703

and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Water&diff=194271609&oldid=194242986 The Tutor (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Don't ever edit my comments again. You are being disruptive. Stop now before stronger measures are needed. Jehochman 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Your comment was repeating an unproven sock puppet accusation and was an implicit accusation of bad faith against an editor and a named person. I hope you take strong enforcement action if you think it is correct, and we will have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser flagged the relationship as  Possible. I am citing that, nothing more. Jehochman 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are repeating the accusation however. Please stop, this is bordering on defamation. —Whig (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)