Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 17 August 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

3RR

I'm sure you are aware of 3RR being an admin but just in case it slipped your mind you might want to have a read over it again and stop edit warring here. BigDunc 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're aware of WP:TPO. Have a nice day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which one do you want me to use for my reason their are a few of them, have you read them yourself? BigDunc 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this row is about but I'd just like to point out that I have breached the Vulcan defences. Shields down, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Launch everything we've got! Time on target!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu proposal humour

(Hey, wait a second... why's everyone agreeing with me? Shouldn't somebody be complaining at ANI about the rouge admin?)

No, we're too busy trying to figure out how to score World Cup tickets from South Africa over this...except we can't decide whether it's for a soccer or football event. :) —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Naw, it's really all because you are agreeing with me (sort of). Keep it up and you'll go far. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You have been mentioned in an incident report at AN/I. Bongomatic 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu

There seem to to be no end of new edit warriors on the Ubuntu disambiguation page. Perhaps it should be protected again while discussion proceeds? Yworo (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Show of gratitude and a quick question

Thanks. Can admins still see it for my block request? Cmiych (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, if they know to look for it. I'll comment in AN/I for good measure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IP edit warring on Linux

• 88.148.211.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Conductive polymer

Look, I constrained my commets to a listing of cites, etc. Somebody else started the soapboxing. I merely replied to retain a NPOV. I suggest a reversion to the original form, before this all started.Pproctor (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "citation amnesia" without sourcing that specific claim is not "a listing of cites", it's WP:Original research, and it has no place here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell, the whole anonymous posting that replaced the original text was mostly OR. I merely replied , giving lots of cites, etc. No OR here. The original edit which he replaced was mostly a list of researchers, what they did and when.

I Agree about cites for "citation amnesia". In fact, your last edit bumped me off as I was putting in the necessary links, which are there right now. I had to do a save and then go back and re-edit the section to keep what I had written. And yes, I generally try to minimize edits. But stuff creeps in.

You may be a little quick on the trigger-- couldn't have been more than 30 minutes or so after I mentioned "citation amnesia" that you demand cites. There is stuff here that has remained uncited for years. And where are your demands for citations on all the OR stuff that started this exchange?

Spiff as much as you like, but at least have a good reason for removing my cites. Really Pi$$e$ me off, when editors remove your cites and then claim that you are somehow posting OR. BTW. This all needs to be hashed out on the discussion page, rather than with drive-by edits. I'm waiting.Pproctor (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those links you gave draws a link between conductive polymers and citation amnesia: hence, including them is OR and/or Synthesis.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, "citation amnesia" does not have to be on-purpose, as the article makes clear. It is true that the two history papers I cite don't use this word per se, but Inselt comes close.

Anyway, Pot-Lid: this was in reply to an OR assertion propagated by you from a prior anonymous edit about how the field would have been retarded for decades without the input of the Noble prize winners. OR /synthesis if I ever saw it. Must have had an off moment.

You having redefined the rules, the choice was to get into an nasty edit war or merely reply to the assertions. I chose the latter, figuring this could all be worked out in some dialog. Again, my suggestion is that we just revert the article to its original bland state, before all this started. I would like to leave in some of my new cites concerning early work.Pproctor (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You having backed off on your (doubtless-inadvertant ) OR, I have gone back to just the facts. Inzelt does question their priority. similarly, neither the Nobel citation nor the prize winners cite any of their earlier discoveries. So how am I soapboxing ? BTW, you are the one engaging in an edit war. I keep getting bumped off when I try to spiff things. Wait a while please before editing .

BTW, If I didn't "always assume good faith", I might think you are trying to set me up for "edit warring" claims by editing while I am editing. This puts me in the position of losing everything I have written or revising your edit, which I originally had no intent of changing. This has resulted in my last two (three?) changes to your edits. This is a well-known trick for shutting down naive but pesky editors. BTW. Speaking of edit warring, just how many times have you changed my edits? Seems like I post somethng or even try to edit and there you are. Sauce for the goose, etc.Pproctor (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

hello, I'm sorry if I post this in the wrong place.

I saw you warned once an user, spectatorbot http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Spectatorbot13 for personal attacks. I write to tell you he continues with his agressive written behaviour, like this one: This CBT bullshit is no different than medieval, cruel pseudoscientific practices such as bloodletting, water dunking and such. It's abuse, period.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Phobia He argues agains scientifical research because it's not according to his subjective experience, and he deletes the research papers links I added to the article.

As I said, i'm not sure it this is the right place to write this, but if it's not I apologize and ask you if you could please inform this to the right moderator/administrator. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.47.164 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Personal attacks

"arguing 'notability' of the feature, based on a single spanish-language blog, is insane"

I consider calling my arguments insane to be a personal attack. Please try to avoid this in the future. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

i will be watching your edits for any further passive aggressive behavior, especially on articles in which you are involved and also attempt to abuse your status as an admin. i consider your argument to be insane, that one single mention in a spanish blog = notable. that is insane, period. the fact that i ended my sentence with 'i am not going to argue this further' and you still came to warn me, shows that you are punitive in your abuse. back off and stop abusing your status. your behavior is unacceptable. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)