Misplaced Pages

User talk:Firefly322: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:20, 4 November 2008 editFirefly322 (talk | contribs)6,138 edits →November 2008: add← Previous edit Revision as of 01:07, 4 November 2008 edit undoGwen Gale (talk | contribs)47,788 editsm →blocked again: fix diffNext edit →
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 323: Line 323:
] Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours {{#if:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exchange of women|to the article ]}}{{#if:| <!-- oldid for diff: {{{2}}}-->}} has an ] that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use ] for any tests you may want to do. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Wrongsummary1 --> ] <small>]</small> 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC) ] Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours {{#if:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exchange of women|to the article ]}}{{#if:| <!-- oldid for diff: {{{2}}}-->}} has an ] that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use ] for any tests you may want to do. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Wrongsummary1 --> ] <small>]</small> 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::I guess you're doing whatever you're doing in good faith and it doesn't seem all that harmful. But my recent edit was certainly not meant to be inappropriate and it's certainly accurate if not precise. It was meant to be something nice towards those who took offense towards the perception of a certain guideline. --] (]) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ::I guess you're doing whatever you're doing in good faith and it doesn't seem all that harmful. But my recent edit was certainly not meant to be inappropriate and it's certainly accurate if not precise. It was meant to be something nice towards those who took offense towards the perception of a certain guideline. --] (]) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

== blocked again ==

Straight off your block for personal attacks, . In any disagreement, comment only on content, not your opinion of other editors. ''Never'' call other editors trolls. It may now and then be ok to say a vandal or sockpuppet has been ''trolling'' but it is never, ever ok to use that word as a noun, adjective, verb or adverb when talking about a good faith editor. ] (]) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:1 week|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:ongoing personal attacks|'''ongoing personal attacks'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:] (]) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)|] (]) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 -->

Revision as of 01:07, 4 November 2008

AfD nomination of Einstein and Religion

I have nominated Einstein and Religion, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Einstein and Religion. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)



Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

User:Loom91 is unhappy with the page. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment. In the meantime I added manual links in both articles (to each other), which should help people navigate if they are stumped by the systolic geometry page or bored by the introduction to systolic geometry. Katzmik (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do seem to care more about wikipedia relationships than the content itself, I suppose. * smiles * --Firefly322 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the "Introduction" template is concerned, I think it is appropriate and could be helpful to wikireaders. Since it would be best to avoid further flare-ups, perhaps this matter should be discussed. Would the talk page at Introduction to systolic geometry be the appropriate place for such a discussion? Katzmik (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Acceptable?

I'm thinking of adding List of science and religion scholars to See also sections on the respective scholars article page. But I want to get at least one other editors idea on such an act before I do it. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. it seems like what the see also is about....related people and ideas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Line of force versus field line

I notice you removed the merge tags last month. Maybe merging wasn't the best thing to do, maybe it is, but something has to be done to those two articles. The entire text of Line of force doesn't mention the term "field line" once (outside of "see also"), despite the fact that the alleged "current text book definition" of line of force is identical with the definition of a field line. Likewise, the field line article doesn't mention "line of force". If a merge isn't appropriate, the least you could do is explain in each of the two articles what the distinction is. As written, it sounds like it's one concept, and it used to be called Line of force, and now it's called field line. Thanks! --Steve (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Alright I removed the section on Current text book definitions. What else might u be thinking? --Firefly322 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. By the way, I just want to make clear that I like the article line of force and I'm glad it's there. Also, the comment by JRSpriggs is not in any way "a lighly concealed slam against" that article. I think you must have been mis-reading the conversation, and encourage you to take another look at it.
Good. Glad to hear it. And I did.--Firefly322 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, based on my cursory internet search, it seems that these terms are now used synonymously (at least, often used synonymously). The websites describing "magnetic lines of force" seem to be describing exactly the same thing as the websites describing "magnetic field lines". Do you agree? If so, do you nevertheless think these should be two separate articles? What, exactly, should their distinction be? (And whatever the distinction is, each article should clearly explain what the distinction is!) Having done all the research to write the article on "Line of force", I was hoping you might have a good idea of how these concepts relate. (I don't, beyond the two minutes of internet searching!) Moreover, by removing the merge tag, it seems like you're confident that these are distinct concepts, and I'm hoping you have some basis for this belief, which can then be incorporated into the articles. What are your thoughts? And thanks a lot!! :-) --Steve (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The references already incorporate these differences, at least implicitly. The Lines of force article reflects the term's usage and meaning given to it by Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and those who have and still do intend the same meanings and usage as these important scientific figures. The Field line article reflects the other term's usage and meaning given to it by David Griffiths on pages 65-69, sec. 2.2.1 (of my Intro to electrodynamics edition). Naturally, I can also certainly agree that the results of a simple google search will be quite likely shallow in telling us only about a few trends in academic fashion (if that's what u sort of mean by "two minutes of internet searching") that need not necessarily be but could be addressed in the wikipedia encyclopedia. As far as the wikipedia articles are concerned, these articles can stand separately based on their respective easily sourcable references. David Griffiths clearly uses the term Field line and carefully avoids the Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell term of Lines of force. As far as I'm concerned, a reason to keep the separate are differences in philosophy. Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell shared a highly successful 19th century philosophy that almost looks like naive realism/idealism (though their scientific success tells us that such a characterization probably falls dreadfully short and doesn't do them justice at all). Anyway, their usage and meaning is reflected in the term/article Lines of force, while David Griffiths's usage and meaning of Field line reflects a very modern scientific realism that is both post functionalism/fictionalism (i.e., useful fiction) and post logical positivism. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you understand this better than me. :-) Based on my understanding of what you just said, here are two possibilities that I think would be sensible:
  • Put a note at the top of Line of force, saying something like "This article describes the historical meaning and evolution of the term "Line of force". For the use of the term in modern physics, see the article: Field line." Vice-versa at Field line. Of course the wording could be improved.
  • Combine the two articles, with half the combined article being "History", including everything that's currently in the line of force article, and the other half being "Modern usage", including everything that's currently in the field line article.
What do you think of either of these? I'd be okay with either, but I somewhat prefer the second, since there seems to be a continuous evolution from the 19th-century "line of force" concept to the 20th-century "field line" concept (even if that evolution is not currently described in the articles), so it seems more logical to have them as one article (even if they do, as you say, stand separately based on references). This also would be more consistent with other physics articles I've seen, which tend to include the history of a concept in the same article as the concept itself, even when the historical understanding was entirely different from the modern one. --Steve (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You are one of the most well-mannered editors I've encountered in a long time. Thanks for that. And I also should have said earlier, thanks for adding the reference to Field line article. The first option is a good one. No objections there. As for the second, I'm always extremely leery of article mergers. When they happen, good work can end up on the cutting room floor. Also looking back through the history of Lines of force, one can see that the original editors were writing as though Michael Faraday/James Clerk Maxwell's concepts were current ideas. With historical references and sources in place, editors who wish to think and write along those lines can now easily make contributions to the current Lines of force article. If the two articles were merged, it would be much harder for them to do so. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel

I agree with your comments 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)



Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor)

From WP:PROF the following are the guidelines:

  • The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field.
  • The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
  • The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
  • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.
  • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

I have not proposed to delete the article, I thought it would be better to have you include something verifiable to substantiate notability. There is no indication in the article for Thomas H. Lee (engineering professor) that there is any verification of any of the above. I looked on google and I see some references to him but was having trouble identifying any third party sources that establish notability. If you are able to add some of these, I would have no issue with the article.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at any biographical article - Thomas H. Lee is a good example. Try to find mentions of your Thomas H. Lee in sources (legitimate journals, articles, etc.) written by others about your subject (i.e., referring to his work, legacy, importance). It is generally a good rule of thumb that if nobody else has written about your subject then they are probably not notable for purposes of wikipedia. the purpose of wikipedia is not. You would know a lot better than I would about what makes this guy notable. I have a list of articles I have worked on included on my userpage. Take a look and try to find similar type sources for your subject. In addition to demonstrating notability, this will also improve the quality of the article. Good luck.

(BTW - you can respond here, I always watch a talk page after I leave a message)

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm..What?

“ Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ”

On the talk page for User:Toddst1, you wrote this. What do you mean? --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer me? --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion project

Please read Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#How to list a dispute, including:

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here.
If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section.
Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.  

Your additions to the project page, in ten eleven edits inclusive of 20:07 through 21:20 30 August 2008 (UTC), which did not fulfill the basic project guidelines, will probably be removed soon. If you seek further clarification, you are welcome to post your questions on Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Added underlining for emphasis.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Sandstein's closure comment for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies (2nd nomination) was, specifically: "The result was keep, any subsequent merger is an editorial issue."

The revision history for the article shows one edit by Coren (talk · contribs) (moved Depression and natural therapies to Treatment for depression: History merge). — Athaenara ✉ 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded

"==Admin tool used to erase it==

"The revision history for the article shows one edit by Coren (talk · contribs) (moved Depression and natural therapies to Treatment for depression: History merge). — Athaenara ✉ 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"An Admin tool was usd to erase the discussion. Other editors such as User:Colonel Warden will probably confirm this if there is some question of accuracy. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)"

The message (diff) blockquoted above is forwarded from my talk page to avoid fragmenting the thread here.

I am not involved in editing the depression articles or their associated talk pages, and I'm not sure what "admin tool used to erase it" meant, but it can be seen that there's quite a lot of discussion on Talk:Treatment for depression and Talk:Major depressive disorder. — Athaenara ✉ 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment refers to Revision history of Talk:Depression and natural therapies. This history is incomplete. There was more than a re-direct. All entries but one are missing. I saw the entries earlier. In fact, User:Colonel Warden's has a quote from one of the missing entries: User:Colonel_Warden/wounds. Can you as a third opinion representative ask that this discussion be restored, so that the discussion can be seen and you can make a proper WP:3 on it? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe all of the history has been kept. The entry you're referring to was refactored by me --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ronz. Can you please restore the article with its talk pages and all the edit history's? For right now it's not possible to see what ended up on the cutting room floor nor is it easy to bring it up to the attention of the WP:3 project or the WP:mediation cabal, etc. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A reminder: too many editors are involved in the dispute for it to fit WP:3O's specific brief. — Athaenara ✉ 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Depression article

Hi. Couldn't see what you meant about W3, but I see from the above message that someone moved Depression... to Treatment for etc...this had surprised me, because it looked like the consensus was in favour of keep. However, can't be bothered making an issue of it. Am sick of the whole subject. It's amazing how some people got so worked up over that article. Some of them just seem to be prejudiced against natural therapies. thanks for telling me.

Sardaka (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

response

I think this sums it up: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (stolen from User:Martinphi). No one can do anything if the baseline virtue isn't up to scratch.--Asdfg12345 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For believers of the Bible, there's an answer. There are also notions like Anonymous Christian for those who do eventually question themselves and are outside this tradition. Sooner or later, I believe that rational believers, to outside observers, simply watch themselves (though that isn't what proponents of such of view see as really happening in their inner selves). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon 3O

Thank you very much for your thoughtful input into Talk:Book of Mormon. It would be premature to state that it had a useful effect. Personally I think it had. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science has gotten pretty crazy; since you haven't been there in a bit, I thought I'd give you the short version. Nothing can be done about users' behavior unless they admit that they're breaking rules, and no one has made such an admission. As such, only the concern over the content dispute are going to be discussed from here on out. Hopefully we can straighten things out in regards to that. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, i have encountered you because you have been targeted for incivility and hyper-verification demands by hrafn. I spent the morning tracking some of your edits and just wanted to say that i like what you are doing, and that hrafn is way out of bounds in his abuse of you. What i too have heard from JeremyMcCracken (and others) is that Mediation may not solve this case because hrafn is intransigent in his assertions, and therefore there is no ground upon which to mediate. It has been recommended to take the matter to the level of either an AN/I report or to ARbCom based on the premise that hrafn violates the WP:IMPERFECT core policy by refusing to acknowedge that articles on religious figures or their books can have a "needs sources" template added without being deleted or redirected out of existence. I am not a bureaucratically-inclined person, but i have started a research project on hrafn's behaviour, which has upset other editors as well as you. Some seem to have left Misplaced Pages due to his pre-emptive and non-discussed deletions of their work. See here -- and feel free to add further pages to the list or to correct my many typos (caused by low vision), for which i apologise in advance. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In secular terms: what a coincidence. And WELL thanks for positive evaluation, Catherine. My concerns are repeated incivility and hyper-verification. Add to that a justifiable sense of being targeted by hrafn (). --Firefly322 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The MEDCAB case is still open, for the purpose of looking into the reverts of your edits. If you want to mediate in that area, great; if not, please post there saying so, so I can close it. The best next step for a user conduct issue is Request for Comment, but make sure your disupte meets the guidelines for listing there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long it will take to address so many other users. Maybe it won't be as bad as I imagine. After all, the main issue is between me and Hrafn. Please hold it open. I'll begin to address it to either tonight or tomorrow morning. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)



Notability

Hi Firefly. Just here with a piece of friendly advice from someone who also works on articles about people who aren't as immediately recognizeable to many wikipedia editors as Big Brother contestants, Pop Stars, Porn Actors or Pokemon. It saves one a lot of grief to put in a paragraph that states explicitly why he or she is notable. For example if when writing I doubt whether a pokemon fan will realise that the topic of my article is notable I will put in a pargraph simply stating: "x is notable because of Y" (of course supplying a reliable source if it isn't too obvious that it is in fact the case, and of course you might be able to find a subtler wording). This strategy may seem crude but it apart from saving you the trouble of fighting AfD's, notability concerns and pedantic editors, and it greatly helps the reader to realise why the person or topic of the article is important, so its a doubly good idea. Happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gloating

Gloating is generally considered poor form. {{uw-npa2}}. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IssuesInScienceReligion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IssuesInScienceReligion.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:ModernTheologyCover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ModernTheologyCover.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)



Image copyright problem with Image:NWofMrTompkins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NWofMrTompkins.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Mystic

Hello, Are you a Christian mystic?

Mateus Zica (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Are you a Christian mystic? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ScientistAsRebel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ScientistAsRebel.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward/Edwin Arthur Milne

Per your request, I temporarily deleted the Edward article, move the incorrectly named "Edwin Arthur Milne" article to Edward Arthur Milne, then deleted the Edwin article, since Edwin is not a likely misspelling of Edward and there might be other notable Edwin Arthur Milnes. Please take a look and see if all is in order. Edison (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! looks great. One possible thing though:, I'm not sure if all the redirects were moved or not. (I think they weren't, but I don't have a diff for the previous ones so i'm not sure.) --Firefly322 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I found them and fixed them. Think everything's proper now. Thanks again.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Taede A. Smedes

Hi Firefly322. Just to say that I've tagged up your article on Taede A. Smedes for its notability. The academic the article describes is not obviously notable. Their CV cites only a few, recent publications (although it looks out of date), and they appear to be an early-career researcher rather than someone firmly established in the field. Can you improve the article to make the notability clearer? I'm not an expert in this field (to say the least). Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He identifies himself as philosopher of religion and as a free-lance writer. He has works to show this and these are right on the leading edge of current religion and science research, as shown by getting a direct response from Ian G. Barbour ( an A-list intellectual in this field and the 1999 Templeton Prize winner). Smedes basic claims to fame are as a philosopher and as a free-lance writer; evidence being his works being peer-reviewed . As a writer, the so-called wikipedia "professor test" is a mis-application of wikipedia guidelines. Such an application of the so-called "professor test" would have made the early Albert Einstein non-notable. Now I would be willing to wager that Smedes is not the next Albert Einstein, but I would also be willing to wager that this sort of mis-application of wikipedia guidelines will sooner or later create a great deal of embarrasment for the reputation of wikipedia in the future. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a very strong WP:stub article in the Category:Religion and science. The article should be left be. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

Hi. Would you care to comment at Talk:Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia in between reverts? I'm not going to revert further, and I'm sure you're also aware of the three-revert rule (if not, please take a look). I'd appreciate an explanation of your position based on Misplaced Pages policy rather than a "gotcha" from another article, which smacks of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Thanks. MastCell  17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this WP:3? Can we agree to something civilized like that? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. I also left a talkpage comment, so we could wait a bit to see if anyone else chimes in. Up to you. MastCell  18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:3 is usually a good way. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Precambrian rabbit AfD

I've nominated Precambrian rabbit for deletion. The discussion can be found here.--Loodog (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. By the way, I completely respect your user page. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please review this behavioral guideline and also that warnings and blocks are not punative. Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I routinely review policies and guidelines. And I do believe that, in your case, WP:AGF is warranted (i.e., you have neither done nor said anything truly creepy.) I believe such faith has to be on an editor-to-editor/admin-to-admin basis. Misplaced Pages is infested with editors and admins who are parasitically taking advantage of the system. They are hollow on the inside and are trying to fill some vampiric need on those of us who truly are committed to making worthwhile contributions to the project. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice you're making sport at lashing out with borderline personal attacks on multiple admins. If this is your idea of sport, I suggest you stop. Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Not my idea of sport. I believe it's important to take a stand and communicate which edits and what editors/admins are doing (at a local level) that is wrong. It's my idea of civil duty. There is corruption within wikipedia project and I believe that there's no reason to wait until the next big scandal breaks in order to do something about it. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Can you pleases stop making accusations of bad faith against other editors. Many thanks, Verbal chat 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs aren't accusations. They are facts. Please stop your acts of corruptions and reign on nonsense upon the wikipedia project. There is an infestation of parasitic editors and admins within wikipedia. It is this infestation that eventually break in various scandals. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't the diff that is the problem - the diff shows I attempted to engage with you to resolve the dispute, and I added a full link to the discussion myself. The problem (re AGF,CIVIL) is your accusations of trolling and that I am in some way corrupt, and postings like the one above referring obliquely to me as a parasitic editor. I would like to work with you, as I think we actually share many views (I am a Christian, and a scientist). It's up to you - I'm trying to go the extra mile. All the best, Verbal chat 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
To me, there is a complete absence of the kind of discernment that I normally see and experience accompanying a committment to Christianity; in fact, there are patterns in your edits that would make me strongly believe that the range of reality normally opened up by a strong Christian faith remains closed to you (e.g., there's none of the "dogmatic behavior" to indicate a priority of Christian or even just religious beliefs). And so based on your contributions to wikipedia and the stands that you tend to take and the editors that you tend to take them with, you are honestly not someone I wish to work with. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps it might be hard to discern any religious dogma from my editing of wikipedia, as I try to ascribe to the wikipedia dogma of neutrality, although I generally view dogma with suspicion - as did Jesus towards the dogma of the Pharisees. As a Christian I try to imitate Christ, and live by his maxims - such as treating other people how I myself would like to be treated. Therefore, I would be very happy to work with you, and if you have a change of heart please let me know. If not, no problem - if we all just edit wikipedia following the rules of wikipedia, and are civil and respectful in any discussions on article talk pages, then there will hopefully be no problem between us. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I am sorry you were offended by my correct tagging of the J C Massee, and I hope we can move on. I am involved in no conspiracies here. All the best, Verbal chat 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheScientist(TimeLife_Book_Cover).JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheScientist(TimeLife_Book_Cover).JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:DivActModScie.jpg

I have tagged Image:DivActModScie.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Misplaced Pages:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Portraits in Science

I have nominated Oxford Portraits in Science, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oxford Portraits in Science. 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. OrangeMarlin 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) OrangeMarlin 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop WP:TROLLing me and making WP:TE AFDs. See comment at AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Portraits in Science

How on earth was Orangemarlin trolling? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth! WP:TE AFD he's made on a article i've recently created, factoring in the comments at these other recent AFD's (Two of them closed as WP:SNOW , a third pretty close with WP:TE comments by Om and Verbal ), I say it's clear case of WP:TROLLing. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the state of each of those articles at the time he put up the AFDs. None had any reliable source cited to support the inclusion of the article. The AFDs served to focus some momentary attention on the articles and those problems were addressed. I'm not a fan of this approach to getting improvements made, but it's hard to argue with the result.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, that is a disingenuous response. (The only policy relevant here is called WP:BEFORE and it was not followed.) Based on this comment I really don't have much trust in you views and I would rather not communicate with you anymore, if at all possible. Thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite possible. GoodbyeLeadSongDog (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

An Issue

Firefly ... we have run into each other in the past, but only in a positive way, I think. However, you seem to have gone well beyond WP:AGF. When well experienced users actually file a claim against you at WP:WQA, there is obviously an issue. Please do not accuse editors of trolling when all they are doing is monitoring Misplaced Pages,and ensuring all articles are sourced. I would ask you to remain civil, and follow the policies when creating articles. -t BMW c- 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I don't share your view. My well-enough referenced work has been targeted. It's obviously personal. Please just drop it. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In case you had not noticed, Misplaced Pages is not on autocratic rule: it runs on consensus. One single person cannot delete all "your" articles (note the quotes, because if you start thinking this is personal, then you're infringing on WP:OWN). A single person can start or comment on ANY article they want, and it does not prove they are "stalking" or "targetting" you: it might prove they do New Page Patrol. Because of this, don't tell me to "drop it" (which is uncivil in its own right)... you have a Civility report against you, and that type of comment doesn't help when neutral people like me have taken a long look at the situation (see User:Bwilkins for how I investigate WQA's). -t BMW c- 10:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Civil" duty

At least one of the editors you target here would appreciate if you would redact or rephrase your comments. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Massey H. Shepherd

A tag has been placed on Massey H. Shepherd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paste (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Massey H. Shepherd

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Massey H. Shepherd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paste (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Exchange of women

I have nominated Exchange of women, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exchange of women. 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. OrangeMarlin 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

A complaint about your behaviour has been lodged at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. Thank You. ThePointblank (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Please see this AN/I thread. OrangeMarlin 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

please don't do that

Hey Firefly, please don't call User:Orangemarlin a troll, since first off he's not a troll and second it's a personal attack, which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In the past week User:Orangemarlin has put up five! of my recent contributions for AFD, two of which were closed per WP:SNOW, the three others all have other editors who strongly oppose Orangemarlin's judgement as to the worth of these articles. Now What is a troll? "...It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution..." What should his actions in these AFD's--all towards my contributions--be called, considering the presence of several strong oppositions from other editors?
  1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan G. Gross
  2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Godfrey-Smith
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lawrence J. Prelli
  4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exchange of women
  5. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oxford Portraits in Science

--Firefly322 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Every time I or any other contributor tags an article for a speedy delete or prods for deletion or takes to AFD then we are making a value judgement as you put it about that author's contribution. It's what Misplaced Pages is about, the point is whether or not those value judgements are made in good faith or not. I've looked at two of your examples and suggested 'delete' for both of them. That doesn't make me anti you or a troll.Paste (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request deleted article info

I've userfied it to User:Firefly322/The Shipwrek. Unfortunately there's little, if any, salvageable content. Please look over the concerns at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Shipwrek if you intend to create a new article on the subject. Cheers, ˉˉ╦╩ 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

blocked

I don't agree with some of those AfDs either but OrangeMarlin is editing in good faith and personal attacks aren't allowed. Stop calling experienced editors trolls, it's unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Firefly322 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting that this block be lifted.

I realize the significance of Gwen Gale's concerns and I respect them.

Decline reason:

If you respect them, you should let us know that you won't continue. This sounds like you respectfully disagree. Mangojuice 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: That unblock request was from an anonymous IP 132.239.90.242 (talk · contribs)- not Firefly322 (talk · contribs). Please ensure any unblock requests are from the actual blocked user. Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geoffrey N. Cantor

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Geoffrey N. Cantor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Verbal chat 10:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

checkY I have resolved and removed the prod. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Verbal chat 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exchange of women has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Verbal chat 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're doing whatever you're doing in good faith and it doesn't seem all that harmful. But my recent edit was certainly not meant to be inappropriate and it's certainly accurate if not precise. It was meant to be something nice towards those who took offense towards the perception of a certain guideline. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

blocked again

Straight off your block for personal attacks, you did it again. In any disagreement, comment only on content, not your opinion of other editors. Never call other editors trolls. It may now and then be ok to say a vandal or sockpuppet has been trolling but it is never, ever ok to use that word as a noun, adjective, verb or adverb when talking about a good faith editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for ongoing personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)