Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 16 December 2010 (→Blocked and Access Restricted: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• User talk:Avidor/archiveAvidor (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to talk

Hey. Putting old conflicts aside, and noting that I know I've been a pompous ass toward you (also noting I think you've been the same to me), I'd be very interested in constructively discussing PRT with an opponent. You're obviously a very adement opponent, and I'd like to hear what you think in a more calm context than a wikipedia talk page. Perhaps you'll convince me of something. What do you say? Fresheneesz 06:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine ignore my friendly request. This simply proves to me that you don't care about transportation, you just care about your agenda. I'm not going around saying light rail is a scam, or that heavy rail is a scam, or busses or anything. However all those things lose money, and produce some sort of drain on our economy. This is your argument for what a PRT system would do - the same thing that current systems do. I'm disappointed that you're such an unkind person. Fresheneesz 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you live with yourself. You have the worst qualities of the news-media today. You are an evil human being. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue to use wikipedia as a soap box, I will bring your case to administrative review. Please stop abusing this website. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.... I welcome arbitration....Avidor (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

With respect to SkyTran and ADA, please read WP:OR. You need to find a reliable source that says SkyTran is not ADA compliant. What you are attempting to do is original research, quoting the ADA standard and interpreting it for SkyTran. That is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

The closest we have to a reliable source for SkyTran ADA compliance is this, which claims: Designated stops have electric lift capability to special vehicles for ADA compliance. So your information about ADA compliance may be out of date.

In any case, you have a history of debating issues and posting your opinions on the PRT talk pages, and you've started up again recently (see the archived San Francisco debate, which had nothing to do with the article whatsoever). You have been informed multiple times that this is inappropriate, and I'm once again informing you of that fact - see WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP. I'm asking you again to cease this inappropriate use of the talk pages. I will immediately archive such content unless there is direct relevance to the article in question. ATren (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And you have a history too, ATren... if you are concerned that I have broken a rule, please take it up with an admin... Avidor (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you my plan of action. If you post something that is clearly WP:OR, WP:SPAM or WP:SOAP, I will archive it immediately. There is no need for an admin to get involved. ATren (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Personal rapid transit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have something to say on Talk:Personal rapid transit, it must be directed only towards discussion of the content, not other editors. If you violate this rule again, I will report you. To insure harmonious editing, please be mindful of Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How is asking a question an attack? How would you characterize this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sdedeo&diff=37815871&oldid=37812315 Avidor (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question is classified as Misplaced Pages:Harassment. Please take a moment to read and understand that policy. We have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. The article talk page is not used to discuss the blogs of editors or to distract from the discussion. If you would like to discuss the personal blog of a particular user, feel free to e-mail them off-wiki. However, article talk pages are only used to improve the article. Please remember this the next time you edit there. If this isn't making sense, say so, and I'll file a report on the administrators' noticeboard and get more people involved. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atren mentioned his blog and he also posted this about me- "Then there is the political/ideological opposition, mainly from a single individual. That material is not published and highly unreliable..." That sentence links to my user page. How would you characterize that statement?Avidor (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He was answering a direct question about the article, and giving me an overview of the editing environment. I'm sorry you feel wronged, but you need to learn to control yourself and express your dissatisfaction in the correct venue, such as ATren's talk page. In any case, there is no excuse for harassment, so please don't do it no matter what anyone says or does to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atren saying my "material is not published and highly unreliable" is not harassment? Incidentally, my opinions about PRT have been published. Here's one from the Seattle Post Intelligencer. I should also add that Professor Vukan Vuchic wrote the following in his book "Transportation for Livable Cities" (Rutgers 1999) "Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is claimed by its promoters )J. Edward Anderson, President of Taxi 2000 Corporation, and Jerry Schneider of the University of Washington, among others) to combine the advantages of rapid Transit private cars. Actually, this is an imaginary system based on an operationally and economically infeasible concept (elaborate infrastructure, yet low capacity) and has no realistic potential for application in urban transportation." - A decade later and PRT still hasn't entered into revenue service, not in Masdar (NY Times), not in Winona ('Winona Daily News) not in Daventry (Daventry Express), not in Minneapolis and not in dozens of other places. Those are the facts. Good luck. Avidor (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You have an interesting argument that I want to spend more time investigating. However, keep in mind, as a SPA, your edits appear to be a form of advocacy for one side. In the opinion piece published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, you describe yourself as the "leading skeptic of Personal Rapid Transit". That's all fine and good, but we're here to write articles and improve the encyclopedia, not to advocate for one side or another. If you can join the discussion on the talk page without attacking any editors, I would love to have you participate in improving the article on PRT. But, I must be honest, I am concerned about your strong POV on this subject. You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? Let's see you and ATren switch roles, and try writing for the enemy. Can you help improve the article so that it is fairly balanced and portrays the subject according to a NPOV? Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to improve the article, but the only improvement I would recommend is to pare the article down to a few paragraphs and link to factual sources like the ones I mentioned (NT Times etc). A huge article about something that does not exist and with so the many failed attempts gives it undue weight. Thanks again and good luck. Avidor (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We have many, many articles about things that don't exist, so that's not a valid rationale for modifying the article. You may be interested in looking at our articles on Dyson spheres, Space elevators, and Terraforming, as only three examples. Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, But as far as I am aware, nobody has requested state or federal funding to build a space elevator in Minnesota as has been the case recently with PRT. Just this week, a PRT promoter asked the Hennepin County Railroad Authority for a resolution in support of PRT. You can watch the video of his presentation on my blog. Do you think the Misplaced Pages PRT article is a good source of information about PRT for public officials faced with a decision to commit public funding or rights of way for PRT? Avidor (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not moderate in your views on the subject. You acknowledge that you take only one side (against) and that you don't allow for a neutral presentation from the proponents of PRT. I think you need to start taking into account the other side, and making an effort to argue their case just as much as your own. So, if you want to help improve the article, you are going to need to change your approach. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinions about PRT reflect the position of mainstream transit advocates in Minnesota such as the Sierra Club North Star Chapter . It is reasonable and moderate to rely on facts instead of conjecture. PRT does not exist in revenue service anywhere in the world. Any claims about PRT are merely conjecture, not fact. Any comparisons between PRT and other proven modes of transport is meaningless, unless the purpose is to mislead. What I have successfully proven in print and on the internet is that many PRT advocates use "facts" based on conjecture that PRT can out-perform conventional, existing modes of transport to argue that public funding for transit is wasteful. You can see that for yourself in this video made by a PRT advocate.. One PRT "fact" often repeated by advocates in public meetings is that PRT can pay for itself out of fair-box revenue - you can hear that in this video and this video. Perhaps you can find a peer-reviewed article that gives an explanation how PRT can "pay for itself". I have been unable to find any authoritative explanation how PRT can operate without public subsidies. Thank you. Avidor (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GA criteria and harmonious editing

Thank you for taking the time to bring me up to speed on your position. I'm hoping you can participate on the PRT talk page in a constructive manner. I'm trying to help point editors in the direction of the Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria as a baseline, and to eliminate any past animosity. Is there anything I can do go help you and ATren reconcile your differences and get back to harmonious editing? Having been in a similar position myself, I know how frustrating a dispute like this can be. Question: is it accurate to describe you and ATren as advocates for opposite sides? If it is, can I ask you both to meet somewhere in the middle? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am very busy right now. Good luck. Avidor (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how that answers my question, but as we make progress on the talk page, if you decide to show up, please remember what I've said here. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and Access Restricted

Due to repeated attempts to harass and out another editor, your account has been blocked indefinitely and restricted from using email or your talk page to prevent further attempts. If you would like to discuss this block, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Shell 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)