Misplaced Pages

User talk:Holybeef

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 0x0077BE (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 24 July 2014 (→Edit warring on Alan Guth.: Additional text was removed from the subst I guess.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:15, 24 July 2014 by 0x0077BE (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring on Alan Guth.: Additional text was removed from the subst I guess.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Holybeef, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Laura Mersini-Houghton

You appear to be running into several problems here:

  1. It is very clear that you appear to have a strong and direct personal interest in discounting the subject's research. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:DUCK, WP:POINT, and WP:SOAP.
  2. Avoid adding red links to articles, unless you have a serious intention of creating new articles on such notable topics. WP:MOS is our manual of style.
  3. You are running the risk of entering into an edit war. Please read WP:3RR before editing any more.
  4. Since the general idea of fixing the article was decided by consensus at WP:AfD, there is no need to discuss every single edit on the talk page. Other editors may rely on WP:BOLD.
  5. Please avoid accusing others of bias; refer to WP:AGF.

Thank you for your interest and work on the project. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Not sure how that could be "very clear", given that we're both anonymous.
  2. Never added any red links, but feel free to prove the opposite.
  3. Was never engaged in an edit war, but feel free to prove the opposite.
  4. No consensus has been reached whatsoever, let alone on a complete overhaul. WP:BOLD is for clear-cut cases, not disputes.
  5. Never accused anyone of anything w/o providing solid evidence, unlike you in 1-4 above.

Since you're not a scientist but a lawyer (one who insinuates at that), I take your insinuations 1-4 as threats, and am feeling Chilling Effect. Holybeef (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my edit to Alan Guth

I object strongly to your misrepresentation of my edit on Alan Guth in your comment reverting it . I also object to the revert itself, insofar as you have mischaracterized the situation as "settled in talk," when it is clearly not.

First, it's clear from my comment that this was not "vandalism" because it reflected my honest opinion. I therefore request that you retract this part of the comment.

Second, it's clear from ] that you have been pushing your perspective in the face of a number of objections, and that no consensus was reached. You simply argued until everyone gave up, which is not consensus.

Third, it's clear to me that you place high importance on a particular slanted interpretation of a few sources even in the face of contrary links that make it clear that Guth continues to promote inflationary theory. (For example, in a talk that I attended in July, for which the slides are available: .) You place particular importance on the word "recant," which has no particular meaning or purpose in modern science, so at the very least a rewording and broader discussion is necessary.

"Make it clear" is Misplaced Pages:POV. We can't draw our own conclusions, all we can do is use reliable secondary sources. Feel free to offer such references that say he didn't recant because Linde clearly (and repeatedly) stated (both in print and audio form) that Guth did recant. Holybeef (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask if you acknowledge that there is no consensus behind your revision and that multiple people have objected, and ask if you are willing to proceed with collegial editing on that basis. If not, as an alternative to a one-on-one edit war (hardly appropriate, and not a good use of my time), I will bring your persistent imposition of your point of view to the attention of a few noticeboards and we'll see what a wider range of editors say.

You're clearly upset due to your bias towards Mr. Guth, so I'd like to ask you to please stop threatening with edit war or otherwise. And stop trying to intimidate the community with argument from authority. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes, SCZenz (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The subject has been thoroughly discussed and referenced as anyone can see. The concluding remarks in article talk were stamped as 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC) and 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC). Please refrain from bias and argument from authority. Holybeef (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Alan Guth.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Alan Guth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.