Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 26 October 2008

Due to events largely outside of my control, I have to leave Misplaced Pages. There are people who know what to do if I am to return. When this is done, please e-mail me. If you wish to contact me otherwise, please e-mail me.

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry for the belated notice. I posted your COIN report to ANI for review. Thus far it seems strongly in your favor. See User talk:Mathsci for the source of my concern. Jehochman 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I am not sure that outing someone was a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Hmm, first of all, who "alerted you"? Secondly, what is the definition of "outing" you're using. Has Pcarbonn complained? If not, how do you know we've outed him? What's more, how do you propose we deal with the fact that there is an obvious conflict-of-interest taking place? I'm all for privacy, etc., but either get the ducks in order and decide what "outing" means (it's not at all clear from WP:OUTING) or figure out what we can do to move Misplaced Pages to a better scenario. These issues are simply going to keep coming up until you guys with power get your acts together. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Who alerted me is not relevant. Sometimes things are brought to my attention confidentially. 2)I'd say any action that associates a real life name or other significant Personally identifiable information (I use the definition common within the HIPAA world, which I sometimes consult within) with a[REDACTED] userid if that user is not currently willingly disclosing it is potentially an outing. The user has to not wish it to happen, though, if they are ok with it, it's not. If they WERE ok with it but now are not (as is your situation) it's still an outing. 3) Did you ask Pcarbonn if it was OK to so associate him? Complaining requires awareness. If I out you but you're not aware of it, it's still an outing, don't you agree? 4) I think the COI could be raised without the outing, in this case. However I do agree that any system such as ours in which we allow pseudonymous editing is going to have these edge case problems. Which is why I favour only allowing editing by IDs that have disclosed their real world identities. "good luck!" is indeed going to be needed. I hope that answers your questions, and I look forward to your response here, I have your page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the actual names from the COIN section you created. I feel you should have been willing to do so without further prompting but since you did not I have done so for you. Please do not out others again, or you may face consequences. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And the editor put his name back. No outing. Verbal chat 10:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case. But the default assumption in ambiguous cases (as this one was) needs to be that the user does not want their name associated until we clearly know differently. So removal was the conservative and prudent thing to do, absent clarification. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I'm not clear here how you're drawing these inferences. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear for those that think this seems rather an odd comment, it was interspersed with two other edits, removed by the author of the edits in this edit: I leave it to SA to leave or remove this as he sees fit, as is his decision by our custom. The question itself does still perplex me. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

COI evidence

I see that you have not responded to my request for more evidence to back up your accusation of COI against you-know-who. Do you have any? Olorinish (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About your COI evidence, it was so lame that (a) I couldn't understand it, and (b) someone declared the issue closed as not a COI, which doesn't look good. You need to explain yourself better, or be prepared for heavy criticism. From me. Olorinish (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please redirect your efforts to areas more in need of your specialties

If you get bored of trying to substantiate your "bad hand" accusations (and you will, because I've been editing entirely in good faith) may I recommend that you have a look at Cryonics, Cryogenics, and related articles? For example, please see that this is used as the first source in the intro to Cryonics, and has been for some time.

Wouldn't your time be better spent routing out that sort of thing than trying to pull Cold fusion -- about which reasonable scientists have disagreed and will continue to disagree -- to your particular interpretation? Do you really want to sully your reputation any further by going around trying to expose editors for having a different point of view than your own? Are you even familiar with the recent literature on cold fusion? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for a voluntary topic ban

ScienceApologist, I am disgusted by your accusation that PCarbonn has a conflict of interest since you refuse to back it up with hard evidence. I think it would be a good idea for you to voluntarily refrain from editing the cold fusion page and the cold fusion discussion page for a period of one year. Olorinish (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ororinish, please assume good faith and stop your poor faith and uncivil edits to this talk page - please see the harassment policy and our civility guidelines. Having a difference of opinions is no reason to ask someone to remove themselves from editing an article. If you feel you have a problem with SA, please refer to the dispute resolution procedures. Verbal chat 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that after reading Verbal's comment, I deleted something I wrote. Olorinish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy revert

Please take a look at my comment in Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard. You reverted my edit. Before I try to get around your reversion, I'd be interested in your thinking. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy availability image

Hi, I just wanted to say that I replaced the image you removed because this debate has come up before. There are a good amount of editors who disagree with your assesment on various grounds, so I think the best course would be to take the usage of the image to the talk page. Nothing personal. NJGW (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cold fusion. 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. --John (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)