User talk:Physchim62: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:51, 20 November 2007

No responguis a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no et tornis com ell, també tu.

Respon a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no es pensi ser savi.

Proverbi 26, 4–5

→Archive 2005
→Archive 2006
→Archive 2007

your comment on my talk page

"the food sample is dissolved in water and about a sample is added to the reagent" <-- I attempted to fix an obvious error in Wikipedia with a good faith edit. My edit was reverted as if it was vandalism, returning an obvious error to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that I suggested User:Rifleman 82 should revert a destructive edit. I can't understand the purpose of your edit. Are you defending the reversion of a good faith edit in order to return an obvious error to a Wikipedia page? --JWSchmidt 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 Places to See Before You Die

I see that you speedily deleted 1,000 Places to See Before You Die on September 15. This was a best-seller, with tons of newspaper/magazine reviews, so I don't think a speedy was the best course of action. It should have at least gone to AFD. Just my opinion, Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving RfAs

Please don't move RfAs that have failed. There's no reason to do so. If you're going to get involved in closing RfAs, please follow the instructions on doing so; I had to remove it from the main RfA page, which should have had it removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to follow the instructions at WP:CRAT, which state "For unsuccessful administrator nominations, move the listing...". As for remove the listing at the main RFA page, I thought I had done so, although my edit doesn't show up in the history so was obviously not processed properly. Thank you for your advice, might I suggest that you keep your eye out for such obvious trolling of RfA so that other admins don't have to do your job for you. Physchim62 (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the confusion. The "move the listing" is talking about the transclusion line (the {{ }} bit), not the actual page. No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just gotta ask, since it's been bugging me since I initially ignored it yesterday: what exactly do you mean by the "so that other admins don't have to do your job for you" bit? I'm neither a bureaucrat nor omni-present (though I'm working on both of those), and can't/shouldn't/won't be held accountable for RfAs that are posted while I'm not at my computer. I'm curious as to what exactly you were hoping to say with that statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were both hasty with our initial responses. I think that the removal of admin requests such as this one (I would qualify it as trolling, as it was so obviously doomed to failure and was so obviously taking the piss) is the responsability of any admin who sees it. I saw it, I asked on IRC how to go about the removal, and I misunderstood the instructions :P You didn't see it, you complained that I'd maid a mess of things when I removed it, amd then you saw why I could have misunderstood the instructions. I would say that the matter is closed. I hope there are no hard feelings on your part; dispite my frustrated outburst, I hold no hard feelings towards you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely lost track of this conversation, but just wanted to drop you a line that there are no hard feelings on my part as well. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Question regarding foreign language sources in WP:V

Thank you for your reply to this thread; could I ask you to look at it again, and perhaps join the main discussion? I am afraid that n this case, the quotation is being pushed to avoid NPOV/UNDUE/FRINGE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot

Sadi hasn't edited since October 10, and hasn't even requested to be unblocked yet. I think your action to unblock him is impetuous. Could you possibly strike out the accusation of "witch hunt", unless you are able to present evidence that those involved have an axe to grind? It's very rude to allege bad faith without evidence. Please, let's not set a bad example for others who may be watching the discussion. Additionally, if you are willing to mentor Sadi Carnot and monitor his behavior, I will support your unblock, but I recommend that we secure his agreement first. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impetuous is such a benign word. It will take months of effort to undo the damage that Sadi Carnot has intentionally inflicted upon multiple wiki projects. Why risk more?Kww 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting his edits would take minutes, not months. What needs to happen is that all 8562 of his edits need to be individually reviewed in light of the knowledge that he has perpetrated a massive hoax, and kept or deleted as appropriate. That is going to take a long, long, time, and an enormous amount of effort. Given that he is a fraud, there is no reason to allow him to continue to make suspect edits.Kww 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other editor who opposed the ban, User:Voltron has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. You stand alone in opposing this ban against a consensus on uninvolved parties. I see that you are a wikifriend of Sadi Carnot. Dear Physchim62, I think you've been trolled. It happens to me too from time to time. For instance, I gave Voltron a barnstar because he had been doing such a good job. Would you consider restoring the block until such time as Sadi Carnot recognizes that he's been breaking the rules, and provides assurances that it won't happen again? I'm happy to have him back if he will provide assurances, but I think it's a big mistake to let him off the hook now. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you revisit the ANI on Sadi Carnot? While I'm sure your reversal of the suggested ban is well intended, other editors who have more knowledge in the area where you presumed Sadi's contributions to have been useful have begun to chime in and the prognostic is not very positive. — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62, just letting you know that I restored the indefinite block. I think that it is clear on ANI that at this time the community has endorsed a community ban of Sadi Carnot. I welcome his explanation, but there would appear to be a near unanimous consensus about this issue. If you still have objections, please comment here rather than wheel-warring against consensus. Sarah 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot some more.

Hey there. I've responded to your comment on my talk page (I didn't know if you expected my response there or here). — Coren ^(talk) 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't resign over this matter, which I think is just honest confusion among well-meaning people. We have an opportunity here to clarify policy and make Wikipedia a better place. Let's take advantage of the situation and make the best of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current solution on the table is that I mentor SC, which is incompatible with me resigning my bit. I do, however, consider the matter a question of principle, as I'm about to make clear on the ArbCom page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for you to mentor SC, and wish that we would have arrived at that solution before this all started. Nonetheless, I would like to proceed with the arbitration, not because I feel anyone needs to be punished, but because our current banning policy is a mess, and it will be very helpful to all concerned if we can get that clarified, per Newyorkbrad's insightful comment. Can we consider this a friendly arbitration were we are merely trying to establish what the principles should be? - Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration is friendly is so far as I hold no personal grudge against you: as I have already mentioned, I consider you a victim rather than a perpetrator. I do have some concern about your blocking conduct in general—you appear to be too quick on the block button and too long on the block length, IMHO—but it is hardly anything I'd take you to ArbCom over. Please consider the criticism that you will get as a means to improve your future admin actions, rather than as a judgement in you as a person. You are not the only admin who would have acted it the way that you did, as Sarah's reblock proves: it is that the fact that I consider such actions not only as wrong but even as dangerous that explains that the case has got to ArbCom. Physchim62 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we discuss how this case should have been handled? If we can come to an agreement about a correct process, we can present that to the community jointly. If you and I can come to an agreement, that could swiftly end this controversy.

My current thoughts, based on advice from SandyGeorgia, are that an administrator can place a 30 day block, and then start a discussion of community sanctions at WP:AN or other suitable venue. Community sanctions could potentially be a ban, topic ban, or mandatory mentorship. At the end of the discussion, if a consensus is achieved, the block would be refactored accordingly. If there is no consensus, the case goes to Arbcom. Additionally, anyone could appeal directly to Arbcom at any time if they felt that process was being abused to railroad somebody.

Would that process resolve your concerns? I think we should focus on strengthening the process and clarifying WP:BAN rather than casting blame. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I am perfectly willing to discuss an interim solution, and indeed I have had several such discussions with uninvolved admins. I was about to present a proposal, but it seems unlikely to get your support: I'll try anyway.

The interim solution should be the current situation, where Sadi Carnot has been given a final warning and in which I (or any other admin who wishes to volonteer) will mentor him should he resume editing. Let us not forget that the account is currently inactive and is being watch like a hawk by a substantial proportion of the admin community.

I am unable to accept a solution which involves a "discussion of a community ban": as I have mentioned on the ArbCom page, I believe this to be a gross frustration of the community's wishes as expressed at MfD delete on the defunct CSN. Nor can I accept a solution in which SC is "punished" grossly in excess of what is habitual for these sorts of actions. Blocks are meant to be preventative, there is simply no reason to block at this time. Perhaps that will change in the future, but for the moment no.

As have mentioned to you and elsewhere, the problem seems to lie (at least in part, maybe entirely) in the different interpretations of blocking policy. As Newyorkbrad has pointed out, this confusion extends as far as ArbCom appeal decisions. While we have this unfortunte fiasco over Sadi Carnot, I feel that we should seize the chance to clarify the acceptible interpretations of blockban policy, so that at least all our disputes actually have a lasting benefit for the community. Physchim62 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. You can mentor Sadi Carnot, if he returns. Let's not quibble over details. As for the horrible confusion that surrounds WP:BAN, I have opened a policy RFC. Arbcom cannot resolve that matter. The community needs to discuss the policy and decide what it should say, and make sure the policy is clear. It will be very helpful if all four of us acknowledge that this problem is due to an honest misunderstanding between administrators about how to apply an unclear policy. I am loath to waste Arbcom's time by going through this process. I think we can all see the ultimate result, so why waste the resources. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Physchim62 is a suitable mentor for Sadi Carnot. I don't think that Physchim62 has come fully to grips with the concept of Sadi Carnot as a fraud. How about Coren or Tim Vickers, if we are looking for someone with hands that are universally accepted as clean?Kww 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of Sadi returning overtly are small. I don't want to quibble about implementation details when the situation has not happened and is unlikely to happen. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mention above and in other discussions, I am not insisting that it is I who mentor Sadi Carnot. I merely think that mentorship is a perfectly reasonably interim solution, while the various policy and conduct issues are clarified. It avoids the imposition of a contraversial (and at this point unnecssary) block/ban. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mentorship is perfectly reasonable. When I blocked, my only intention was to prevent further editing until an arrangement could be made. Forgiveness is a good thing. If a banned user wants to return, under mentorship, we should usually agree if there is a willing mentor. I asked to withdraw the arbitration, but the arbitrators and several other parties still wish to discuss the case. My plan is to observe, and answer any questions people want to ask me. I am very glad, Physchim62, that we could resolve our differences. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that, in reality, the current situation is more like probation than mentorship. We haven't resolved all the details, but we don't really need to at this stage if everyone agrees that Sadi Carnot has been warned and that a large number of admins are aware of the potential (at this stage hypothetical) further problems that he might cause. Physchim62 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culpable bad faith?

Care to stop with vague accusations, and make a specific one?Kww 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not here thank you. There will be time for that yet, should ArbCom accept the case. I shall merely note that the right that you request for youself is not one that you ever granted the user in question, nor even those who were brave enough to oppose the mob. Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I would appreciate it if you would respond to my request at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_on_Statements_by_Physchim62_.28Keith_Henson.29

On that page, here, my talk page, or by email to hkhenson@rogers.com

Thanks

Keith Henson 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your comments, and you obviously have the right to reply to my implied attacks on your actions. I shall not be responding on that page, nor in detail here, as the case is about to open and there will be a chance for everyone to place their evidence then. Once the evidence page opens, please remember only to edit your own section, as otherwise it becomes very difficult to follow. As for your contension that the "dozen editors" at ANI were the one's who had examined the evidence, this demonstrably incorrect: they hadm't examined the evidence at all, they were either calling for blood in a manner which I have described as culpable bad faith, or were drawn along in the witch hunt. Physchim62 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't directly related to the ban case opening. The ban came about because a number of editors realized that Sadi had been up to no good, and worse, they were upset because it had taken so long for his behavior to be noticed. I don't know if there is or will be a place to discuss preventing the kind of thing Sadi did from happening in the future. If there is, please post a pointer to it.

It seems to me that there is a weakness for Wikipedians to support form over content, especially when the admins involved are not experts on the topic (and who can be on everything?).

The reason I wanted you to read and comment on these two versions of an article Sadi edited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

is because this was typical of what Sadi did to other articles, stuffing them with referenced but unrelated material, making the articles harder to understand and eventually putting in links in that led back to his pseudoscience web pages.

As I mentioned, John Tooby's evolutionary psychology concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. John Money's concepts are about as remote from EP as you can get. It is, as I commented at the time, as unrelated as putting astrology in a planetary science article.

As for "calling for blood" and "witch hunt" both are descriptive but in the aftermath of looking at what Sadi was doing do you think they were justified? Do you see any factual evidence that he was not doing the things that caused him to be banned? Perhaps people should have been calmer about it, but they were understandably upset that he had gotten away with so much for so long.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you would like to put capture bond up for deletion, I would appreciate it. Keith Henson 20:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

Regarding this edit, a big part of the Committee's role is to clarify ambiguities in site procedures and standards. I have no doubt you both acted in good faith. One of the questions we should all be asking is whether the communication among sysops was adequate. As someone who's done a lot of complex investigations myself, I realize how tough it can be to lay out a cogent report about long term subtle disruption - and I wasn't involved in this particular case and wish to remain neutral about whether the investigation was appropriate. On a practical level, I encourage the site's sleuths to create an investigation report in user space to connect all the dots. Perhaps the repeated blocks and unblocks that occurred in this instance could have been avoided if that had happened. On the other end, I'm also concerned when more than two sysops get involved in the indefinite block and/or unblock of an editor. I really think it's healthier for the site's overall functioning to consult the prior sysops who acted and ask them to reconsider their actions, or to wait for community discussion to play itself out and establish clear consensus, or to just bring the matter to an arbitration request. One of the reasons the Committee exists is to examine these matters carefully when the community fails to reach consensus. Although it's no secret that Jehochman and I have worked closely in the past - and I have the highest respect for his research skills and integrity - I want you to know that my actions in the arbitration request are in no way prejudiced against you. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, I have never even dreamt that your comments or actions were directed against me! We fundamentally disagree over Community Bans, that much we both know, but ArbCom is not going to give either of us complete satisfaction, nor should it. Jehochman's actions have turned out to be controversial, mine as well, that is hardly a state secret. The point of my edit was to try and make things as simple as possible to ensure that this case is finally heard, something which I think is for the benefit of all admins and of the Community as a whole. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it would be possible for ArbCom to say that both I and Jehochman acted correctly, but that a ban on SC is still the correct course of action. They're crafty these lawyers! But if ArbCom says that anyone's actions are correct or wrong, they will have to say why, which is the imoprtant point in guiding future action. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree on some fundamentals. I'm curious what you think a community ban is (or ought to be). It's been my opinion for a long time that the community's response has been too narrowly focused on outright sitebans, and where feasible we ought to work out lesser remedies such as topic or article bans. I'm also interested in finding a way for the community to implement topic paroles without prejudice toward either side of a contentious subject. Two of the longest and most contentious arbitraton cases where I've participated (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS) resulted in little else. The trick is to find a fair, equitable, and scalable way of implemeting that sort of thing. I'll be the first to agree that my solutions haven't been entirely successful thus far, but the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline works pretty well. And maybe we could reduce the number of sitebans and have the site running more smoothly if there were better ways of stepping in early and effectively. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning policy RfC

I've left a notice at the community portal [1]. Please check it for neutrality and let me know if there is anything else we can do to help this process. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really yours?

Hello.

Is PC62test really an alternate account of yours or someone trying to impersonate you? — Coren ^(talk) 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. That account could be somebody intending to stir up trouble. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova (talk · contribs) has indef blocked preemptively as an almost certain impersonation account as soon as I brought her attention to it. I think it's fair to presume someone's trying to throw feces in the fan's general direction. — Coren ^(talk) 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bother it caused. It is really mine (a developer can confirm this, but it's not worth their hassle). It was created to test for a possible security error which I noticed in my comment at WT:BAN (the one where one of the IP addresses which I habitually use was displayed instead of my signature). I was attempting to recreate the same security flaw from the same computer: excuse me for not saying on wiki what the possible security flaw was, and for any undue effort this has caused other administrators. Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a login times out while a user is preparing a comment. This happens very infrequently, and you'd have to wait many days or even weeks to recreate the scenario. I hope this information helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, that wasn't the situation I was trying to recreate (it's a well known problem, and not really a security flaw, at least as far as we know about it and have to accept it!). I'm going to discuss this one with the developers before I say anymore onwiki. Merely to reiterate that PC62test was a test account that should not have been editing outside of it's own userspace... Apologies also for not noticing that the account had posted at AN (dispite the fact that it was me who physically clicked the button), this is entirely my responsability. Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I presumed you wouldn't mind having to unblock the account if it was legit rather than let an impersonator speak in your name if it wasn't. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Now I'm off back home to discuss with the developers what actually happened there... thanks again to all involved. Physchim62 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) Yep, and I'd be curious what flaw you were trying to recreate. Anyway, I think this is a testament to both Coren's and Jehochman's integrity. Differences aside, they've both got your back. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I can't think of anything else at the moment to say but "Thank-you". (I can, but it might be misinterpreted, so I shall stick with thank-you). Physchim62 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?

Two users have come to me suggesting that they may have found a Sadi Carnot sockpuppet. I've asked them to take their evidence to User:Carcharoth who is familiar with the case, yet not an involved party. I just wanted to keep you informed so you'd have a chance to comment if you wish to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I completely support your action here. I will have a look myself when I finish work in a couple of hours. Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked a few diffs that looked suspicious: [2] [3] [4] While this could be somebody possibly inserting links to an affiliated website and own papers, the edits don't seem improper, and the site linked to, http://www.mdpi.org/, seems to be a reliable source. What do you think? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear COI, even if the COI hasn't caused damage. Take a look at http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=mdpi.org Kww 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is garden variety COI, you can file a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard and somebody will give the user a gentle warning. {{uw-coi}} is a useful tool that I created for this purpose. To me, Lin looks like a newbie who needs a clue; nothing more. I could be wrong, so you can request checkuser if you like. He's edited MDPI. While that is an apparent conflict of interest, COI alone is not a reason to delete an article. If there is notability, the article just needs to be reviewed for neutrality. Happy editing, - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like SC sockpuppetry to me, but I agree that the account is suspicious in itself. The MDPI appears to be phoney, there are nine people in the Swiss telephone directory at that address (none of whom are Lin, but he could be ex-directory, and he could rent an office there). This is hard to reconcile with the MDPI's claim to store over 10000 samples of fragile organic material. I've no opinion on Gibbs paradox, I suggest we send it to [I [WP:PHYSICS]] for expert advice. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the MDPI journals certainly do exist, and appear to be legitimate (whther they're useful or not is a separate question, but they're not invented). Tricky one, I'm going to sleep on it before taking any action myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's often a tendency to assume that two different people making the same mistake are one, when in fact, it's just a common mistake. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't you think it's a strange coincidence that the MDPI happens to be the principal venue for papers and conferences by Georgi Gladyshev, and that our new friend started editing basically when Sadi Carnot stopped. "Things that make you go 'Hmmm'." — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the user says. Keep in mind that I spent a lot of time speaking with Sadi Carnot last spring and kept an open mind for a long time. It was just dumb luck that I stumbled on the ANI thread and your evidence connected all the dots for me. The editing of this new user does not appear particularly destructive to my untrained eye. Your suspicions may be enough to request checkuser. Checkuser evidence would be very helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said was "go ahead and delete anything you like" and then he blanked his talk page.Kww 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it could be an admission (adding), but an admission of self-promotion, not an admission of sockpuppetry - Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P62, notice that Linshukun (talk · contribs) created MDPI. I agree with your point about storing 10,000 samples at a residence. That seems odd, but maybe they contract out storage to a facility, and they don't have an office. I work at home too. This will keep. Let's talk about it in the morning when you return. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that Linshukun and Sadi Carnot are the same person. They both publish in the real world using different names and on different topics. Linshukun has only edited articles related with MDPI and the Gibbs paradox. Regarding the latter, he is just pushing the theories he has published in various journals--some of them even respectable--as Shu-Kun Lin, which makes sense (not that the theory makes sense, but that it makes sense that he wants to push it ;-). They are either two different people or: 1) Libb Thims aka Sadi Carnot is cleverly impersonating Shu-Kun Lin by pushing Shu-Kun Lin's own theories; 2) conversely, Libb Thims was being impersonated by Shu-Kun Lin; 3) at least one of the real-world names is fabricated, which might involve a very complex plot lasting many years and predating Wikipedia. I don't buy any of the three alternatives. Can anyone think of another? Note: I don't exclude the possibility that they know each other. --Itub 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is run of the mill COI editing that should be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should assume good faith on this one, at least for the time being. I'm not too worried about the CoI issues myself: there is WP:AJ to deal with that (both Bduke and Carcharoth collaborate on this WikiProject). In the past, we have found that bona fide publishers of academic journals are acutally useful contributors, so long as course that their edits are checked from time to time by uninvolved editors. The fixation with a single article (Gibbs paradox) is rather more troubling as a warning sign for possible bad editing, but again I think we should let the relevant WikiProject take a look before a non-specialist admin takes any action. I agree that there are possible innocent explanations for the anomalies that I turned up last night with with regards to the MDPI. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists are trained to think objectively. They can have an easier time writing about their own work without creating a mess. I remember an oceanographer who wrote about his own organization, yet the article was fine. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, which is why we tend to apply lighter CoI rules on science projects than on other parts of WP: the potentially CoI contributions are usually less troublesome, if troublesome at all. It still rings a small alarm bell when I look at a series of contributions (in science or in any other area) and I find such and obvious fixation on a given article over an extended period. As I say, I still think we should assume good faith with this editor: Gibbs paradox is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic, and he has published papers about it in respectable scientific journals. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shall we notify the relevant wikiproject and ask and see if sombody would like to help User:Linshukun by reviewing Gibbs paradox? Of course a serious scientist will never object to peer review. Perhaps the article can be prepared for good article or featured article candidacy. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts to provide a mechanism for experts to legitimately write about and cite their own works. Perhaps with a process like this, we will have fewer repetitions of this unfortunate incident. - Jehochman ^Boo! 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he was a sockpuppet - I just thought his activities were relevant given that he resumed editing shortly after User: Sadi Carnot stopped. This is especially significant as he claims on his userpage to be the owner, publisher and editorial director of many of the journals in which Gladyshev has apparently published his work (which references User: Sadi Carnot, his joke-laden websites, his unpublished books, the wikipedia articles he has created). Furthermore, at least one of these papers (like this one) was submitted to that journal (IJMS) only a few days after the wikipedia article it references was brought to AfD. When was it created?

The same individual alludes to his impending bankruptcy, due to these numerous journals, in a prominent discussion forum about Open Access Journals (link). It is the only post (of 4605) to which Jimbo Wales chooses to respond.

Ten days or so later, User:209.86.97.41 (Waves/Thims/Carnot) creates Human thermodynamics. Thims transcribes the entire AfD, with comments, to his website (www.humanthermodynamics.com/wiki-debate.html). Ominously, he highlights the phrase "peer-reviewed mainstream journals".

Shu-Kun Lin is a reputable figure as far as I can tell. He probably publishes some reputable journals. He claims the involvement of Nobel prizewinners in his editorial board (Link). Nevertheless, some of the work cited by Sadi in these journals is... interesting. I am not sure User:Linshukun is who he says he is, but he may be. If we have been hoaxed or used, maybe Shu-Kun Lin - and maybe even the wider open-access community - have been too.

Some of what I say is speculative. Some of it is not. Administrative actions are not my priority. I post here in the spirit of sharing my concerns, and in the hope that open discussion will eventually enlighten us. This is complicated, and I am out of my depth. Best regards to all --TreeKittens 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, some very interesting links there! I am not surprised that Lin is having financial problems: he appears to have no source of revenue (except donations) for MDPI, pays postage to get the samples to Basle and then lets the out again free of charge [5]. The MDPI has a scientific advisory board, none of whom I've heard of (but that means nothing!). The journals appear to have properly consitituted editorial boards, which include at least three Nobel prize winners (I didn't check all the boards). As such, the articles relating to MDPI and its journals appear to be bona fide, subject to review by WP:AJ. Lin has also published work in Gibbs paradox in peer reviewed journals [6]. I think we should really leave Sadi Carnot out of this one, by Ocham's razor. Physchim62 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly OT, but regarding the scientific advisory board, at least Michael B. Smith is very well known, as the author of the latest edition of March's Advanced Organic Chemistry (as well as other textbooks on organic synthesis). --Itub 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for responding. I am finding this so terribly confusing. Note that most - but admittedly not all - of Lin's publications are in journals affiliated with his own publishing house. Searching a bit shows that MDPI has published many many journals. Some of them (like this) seem to have flopped. Others, like Entropy seem to be quite successful, or at least have been. It has Kenneth Arrow - no less - on it's "virtual editorial centre". He is nearly ninety. This makes it all the more surprising that it also has Georgi Gladyshev on its editorial board [7] and even links to his unbelievable website - now blacklisted. If you are not at least intrigued by this I suggest you take a look around that website. Some of it looks perfectly normal. Some of it is merely unorthodox. Some of it is simply unbelievable. One page on that website has a picture of "Libb Thims" (which we do know is a pseudonym). (www.endeav.org/?id=47&lng=rus). Be sure to scroll right down. I also subscribe to Ocham's razor. Best regards --TreeKittens 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: According to this report by Lin in Entropy, the entire editorial board has resigned, and Lin now has sole editorial control of the journal. He seems to be planning a special edition of this journal on Gibbs paradox. There is a call for papers here. It still claims to be peer reviewed, but I find that inconsistent with the resignation of the editorial board. Perhaps there is a new one. It is also interesting that this page offers to "exchange links". It also links to the wikipedia page User:Linshukun has recently been editing. This could be innocent, but it is definitely interesting. Note also that one of Thims' websites is a veritable parody of wikipedia (www.humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html). Thanks. --TreeKittens 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge?

In one of your comments you mentioned that you graduated Cambridge about 15 years ago. On our side of the pond we don't have anything comparable, but I did graduate Yale at about the same time with two degrees in computer science,(verify) and then attended Columbia Law School. I was reviewing your edits and saw that you've done an extremely good job here. It's a shame that we first met in the midst of a conflict. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I went to Yale too! PhD in chemistry, 2001-2006. --Itub 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a big misunderstanding that could easily be resolved at the nearest pub with a couple of pints. I'm really glad you found this diff [8] because I hadn't remembered it. You see, I am also opposed to witch hunts and harassment. I spend a lot of time trying to stop trolls from attacking our good contributors. That's why the witch hunt comments hurt me so much.

Yes, some of Sadi's detractors have gotten over excited, but let's remember not to bite them. I tend to ignore shrill complaints. However, reasonable people like User:Coren, User:SandyGeorgia who strongly opposes witch hunts, and User:MER-C made a strong case for a block. That's the evidence I relied upon, plus what I knew from my prior investigations. Back in April I understood that there was something wrong with Sadi's editing, but I was loath to act since Keith Henson had his own COI problems. I didn't trust his evidence, and I wasn't aware of how widespread the problem was. I was also juggling another Arbcom case and a longterm troll who eventually got himself banned. This last report at ANI was the final straw. Suddenly, all the pieces of the puzzle fell into place and it was clear what was going on with Sadi.

As I've said all along, I am completely happy with Physchim62 mentoring Sadi. I regret that we didn't talk this over for ten minutes before getting upset with each other, but it's never too late to set things right. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are biochemists allowed to join chemists at the pub? Or would the amount of organics you people can put away be dangerous to somebody without the proper training? Tim Vickers 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemists are definitely allowed to join chemists in the pub, especially given their expert knowledge on fermentation! Physchim62 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy to (film series)

Here is the list that was discussed in IRC. These links take you directly to the conversation on the various talk pages. TIA for looking. - LA @ 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note

I left a note for you on WP:AN regarding Gene. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment on the latest here and here. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG AN discussion! I'll keep an eye on it, but it seems like the whole matter is in capable hands for the time being, so I don't really see what I could add. Physchim62 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot arbitration case

Do you think you and Kww could cool it a little bit at the arbitration case? You should both concentrate on Sadi Carnot's behaviour and not so much on the behaviour of you two. Although the arbitrators will look at that if it is warranted, at the moment it is a bit unsightly to see you two throwing proposals at each other on the workshop page. Cross-posted to User talk:Kww, and clerk notified. Carcharoth 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all that I need to say against Kww. I note that he is not the only person making ridiculous statements (which sould be assimilated as personal attacks if I had a thinner skin) on the arbitration case. Otherwise, I intend finishing my Workshop proposals very soon. Physchim62 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request strikethrough

I respectfully repeat my request that you strikethrough this post. As you saw in Jehochman's prompt reaction when it appeared there may have been a spoofing attack against you, he's the sort of person who goes out of his way to do the right thing regardless of its potential effect on a dispute. He had no need to make that declaration regarding potential admin coaching, nor had I any need to confirm it. It simply happens to be true. No dispute is worth my credibility, certainly not this one. The response you chose probably reflects poorly on you to impartial eyes. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Durova, you yourself did not take the time to read Jehochman's other actions related to this dispute. It is my belief that he should not have the power to use administrative tools, given his obvious lack of judgement (dare I say, common sense). You say that no dispute is "worth your credibility": perhaps you would care to abstain from further commenting on this one, especially given your current position as a candidate for ArbCom. If either yourself or Jehochman cannot stand the heat, then you shouldn't have lit the fire. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the withdrawal of one uncivil and bad faith comment. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF do not have clauses allowing for the exceptions you articulate. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF does not require me to check my intelligence in at the door when I start editing Wikipedia, nor does WP:CIVIL require me to put up with the hypocritical attacks which Jehochman has been making on me, and for which you seem to have so little concern. Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request: if you cannot be bothered to read the evidence, then please refrain from commenting on this case. Otherwise, it is only your own credibility which will suffer. Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) You criticize my lack of an active role in this case. Would you like me to take a more active one since, as you correctly state, I did involve myself by commenting? Durova^Charge! 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every member of the Wikipedia community has the right to add evidence and comments to an Arbitration, you of all people should know that. I'm not asking you to get involved—I think you have more than enough on your hands as it is—but if you do get involved it should be after having read the evidence and not simply to protect one or other of the parties. There are complicated issues at stake in this case, which are in danger of being hidden (possibly deliberately): if you have your views, they are welcome: but if you only participate to add noise, I respectfully ask you to refrain. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never intervene simply to protect some party at arbitration. Far from it; I happened to have known the background on the sole diff provided as evidence for the proposed ban on Jehochman. So I considered myself compelled to comment. I was not at liberty to discuss the full background until he chose to. As you may or may not be aware, I've made a long term commitment to identifying promising editors and coaching them into administratorship. Several people got their mops this year with my help. The investigations work I do is sensitive, and due to that sensitivity I need to be sure the people I coach are trustworthy. That means I follow the editor's history including earliest contributions, and this account's earliest contributions were obviously not the editor's first. Jehochman's question would have been polite and appropriate even if that had not been the background. That's just what happened to have been the case here. I certainly don't think of this as central to the case, so I'm surprised you've pursued it so aggressively. Yet I would gladly take a look at the central issues, since they're right down my alley as a wikisleuth.

I've handled several cases of subtle and complex vandalism and am quite good at determining genuine accusations from smoke and mirrors. The main reason I've refrained from doing so is that I've worked quite closely with Jehochman for a number of months. So if my findings were to substantiate his, there's a significant chance that:

The analytical techniques I use could be subtle enough that the evidence may need to be sent to the Committee privately, in order to avoid providing the site's more determined banned vandals any education about exploitive methods. My edits get watched rather closely because I'm known to be good at this.
Some parties to the case might attempt to dismiss my participation as partisan support of Jehochman, particularly so if my evidence isn't made public.

Of course if my findings contridicted his own in whole or in part, the same circumstances might have the reverse effect. It's been my experience that Jehochman is thorough and meticulous about this sort of thing, and that he rarely needs correction or supplementation. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, of course, and I'd give him the same hard scrutiny I'd give anyone. Yet if this conversation is any indication (where I happen to know he was right, yet you refuse to entertain the possibility that either of us has been telling the truth) the result of me taking a more active investigative role might be of use to the Committee, but would be unlikely to make the case more harmonious among the participants. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two respectful points, Durova:

I know WP:BEANS as well as you do.
Each time you produce "private evidence" your credibility goes down. The credibility of ArbCom goes down just for accepting it, although this may, in some very rare cases, be necsessary. If you have private evidence, submit it privately, don't crow about it to all concerned.

I also note that, dispite my reminder, you still haven't read the evidence page, or even my motion (now withdrawn). This does not bode well for your hoped-for future functions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InChI class in Common.css

Hello. Would you please explain why this class was put in Common.css? It only appears to be used in one template, which means this class should be placed inline within the template... or you could use the .persondata class, which is 100% indentical. Either way, the code does not belong in Common.css. — Edokter • Talk • 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:InChI and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. It is identical with class .persondata because it performs a similar function (metadata), but for chemical compounds not human beings. Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User I mentioned

Was Special:Contributions/Dala11a. Atropos 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look. There seem to be more serious problems here, involving more users than simply the one that you mentioned. I will need a little more time to ensure that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies are being applied in this contentious subject. Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Quassin_PC_ChemSketch_15pt.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Quassin_PC_ChemSketch_15pt.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cox, Alicante

A tag has been placed on Cox, Alicante, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rknobbe 07:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question

Here. Might I ask what your response means? I (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Nevermind. I understand. I had already asked. My username is currently Soleil, but I sign as I for now because of some misunderstandings about this name. So nevermind. When scanning to see if I had already asked you, I didn't see I, so I assumed I had already asked you. Sorry about that. I'll make note on that page. I (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Lead(II) nitrate 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.

Thanks!

Hi Physchim, thanks for your thoughts!

If you've a bit of time right now, how about joining us at irc. #wikichem. --Rifleman 82 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving AN/I

Thanks, I don't know what happened there. Did four people use the template simultaneously? -- Relata refero (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to mistype subst—and not once, but twice! I've fixed my errors now, and I can't see any more. Sorry to all concerned! Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Sanctions

Are you interested in putting together a proposal for how we can handle lesser sanctions than blocking or banning, such as: topic bans, civility patrol, revert patrol, limits on using alternate accounts, mentorship, and so on? I think the key idea would be that if a discussion at AN/I or similar venue generates a consensus that a user has a behavior problem, it may be possible to convince the user to accept editing restrictions instead of harsher measures. Editing restrictions should only last for a finite period of time, and then be removed if there are no repeated problems. To make this work, there should be a sorted list where restrictions can be recorded. As a practical matter, searching the AN/I archives isn't very much fun. What do you think of this idea? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition to that, I'd like to point out that it is difficult to locate precise reasons why certain editors have been indef-blocked as well. There was a discussion about this somewhere just recently (the mailing list?). Now that CSN doesn't exist, we need some form of centralized clearing house to reference what the status of problem editors is. -- Relata refero (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be lists, with a brief summary and a link to the archived discussion. We do already have Wikipedia:List of banned users. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that includes the indefblocked, as opposed to banned. I suggest a thread at WP:VPR. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's desysoping

When is Durova's desysoping scheduled? The sooner the better. --Earthenwareboat (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's desysopping isn't "scheduled" at all. Nor do I believe that you would have much of a voice in it if it were ever to happen... Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:Earthboat [9], User:Earthenboat [10], Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon?

Durova blocked me as a "sock" of someone (Amorrow?) and I have no idea who that is. I feel sorry for her at this late stage, albeit, I am quite disturbed by her ability to simply make assumptions, block and move on. I am not asking for any special treatment, however, I do think my input in this issue was timely and accurate. She is not working for the project right now, she is working for Durova. I suspect there is more to her problems than "meets the eye." Thank you for your time and your courage in the firing line. Songgarden. Chicago time 11-19-07 12:28 p.m. 76.109.37.37 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Songgarden (talk · contribs), per [11], a sock of Once_and_Forever (talk · contribs) who is indefinitely blocked. You seem to be hosting a sock hop. Socks are affectionate. They go where they sense love. ;-D - Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Durova, you are quite right to be searching for something, but it is not grasping at straws, here; looking for some enemy. I am hardly an enemy to the project. 100% wrong again; it is not seemly that you keep trying to find some connection to me because you simply cannot do it. Try checkuser or some other vehicle that has also failed many many times before. I am sorry for your untimely bad circumstances. Please unblock me and move on. Thank you, Songgarden. Chicago time: 1:46 p.m.

Please look at the evidence of this nonsense and stop chasing windmills. The system does not work. 68.204.125.221 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, Because I have offices all over the world, I suspect I could go to each of them and (there) write to you to make my points quite clear. You have blocked me several times under false and misleading circumstances. Each time, you have come up with another false "positive." I like the name Songgarden, so please let me go back there. I certainly could establish many more accounts, but as I said, I am not the enemy. Thank you, Songgarden. Deutschland. 11-19-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.199.148 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill the refrigerator

Hi. I've noticed you're in Election campaign (good luck!). Few days ago me and some friends were toasting to the good life with Maurice27. Now we are planning to visit you and... may be have a beer and remember the old days, no doubt, talking about your rightness and the rightness of the ArbCom in the Catalonia-Request resolution, in the porch... while the sunshine dies beyond the horizon. But you know us: we like the 'fiesta', so remember to buy some beer.

Best. --Owdki ^talk 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The refrigerator is full in Capellades, I can assure you! Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like, that is what the questions page is for. However, dispite the fact that I am flattered by the interest that my candidature has generated on the Catalan WP, it might be better if questions were in English, so that WP users can judge both the candidate and the questioner. Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:55, 19 November 2007 edit Owdki (talk \| contribs) 461 edits →‎Fill the refrigerator: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:51, 20 November 2007 edit undo Physchim62 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 33,631 edits →‎Fill the refrigerator: reply Next edit →
Line 365:		Line 365:

	Best. --[[User:Owdki\|''Owdki'']] <sup>[[User talk:Owdki\|talk]]</sup> 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)		Best. --[[User:Owdki\|''Owdki'']] <sup>[[User talk:Owdki\|talk]]</sup> 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
			:The refrigerator is full in [[Capellades]], I can assure you! Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like, that is what the questions page is for. However, dispite the fact that I am flattered by the interest that my candidature has generated on the Catalan WP, it might be better if questions were in English, so that WP users can judge both the candidate '''and''' the questioner. [[User:Physchim62\|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62\|(talk)]] 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)