User talk:ජපස

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design 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.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry for the belated notice. I posted your COIN report to ANI for review. Thus far it seems strongly in your favor. See User talk:Mathsci for the source of my concern. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I am not sure that outing someone was a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Hmm, first of all, who "alerted you"? Secondly, what is the definition of "outing" you're using. Has Pcarbonn complained? If not, how do you know we've outed him? What's more, how do you propose we deal with the fact that there is an obvious conflict-of-interest taking place? I'm all for privacy, etc., but either get the ducks in order and decide what "outing" means (it's not at all clear from WP:OUTING) or figure out what we can do to move Wikipedia to a better scenario. These issues are simply going to keep coming up until you guys with power get your acts together. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Who alerted me is not relevant. Sometimes things are brought to my attention confidentially. 2)I'd say any action that associates a real life name or other significant Personally identifiable information (I use the definition common within the HIPAA world, which I sometimes consult within) with a wikipedia userid if that user is not currently willingly disclosing it is potentially an outing. The user has to not wish it to happen, though, if they are ok with it, it's not. If they WERE ok with it but now are not (as is your situation) it's still an outing. 3) Did you ask Pcarbonn if it was OK to so associate him? Complaining requires awareness. If I out you but you're not aware of it, it's still an outing, don't you agree? 4) I think the COI could be raised without the outing, in this case. However I do agree that any system such as ours in which we allow pseudonymous editing is going to have these edge case problems. Which is why I favour only allowing editing by IDs that have disclosed their real world identities. "good luck!" is indeed going to be needed. I hope that answers your questions, and I look forward to your response here, I have your page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the actual names from the COIN section you created. I feel you should have been willing to do so without further prompting but since you did not I have done so for you. Please do not out others again, or you may face consequences. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And the editor put his name back. No outing. Verbal chat 10:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case. But the default assumption in ambiguous cases (as this one was) needs to be that the user does not want their name associated until we clearly know differently. So removal was the conservative and prudent thing to do, absent clarification. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I'm not clear here how you're drawing these inferences. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear for those that think this seems rather an odd comment, it was interspersed with two other edits, removed by the author of the edits in this edit: [1] I leave it to SA to leave or remove this as he sees fit, as is his decision by our custom. The question itself does still perplex me. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

COI evidence

I see that you have not responded to my request for more evidence to back up your accusation of COI against you-know-who. Do you have any? Olorinish (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About your COI evidence, it was so lame that (a) I couldn't understand it, and (b) someone declared the issue closed as not a COI, which doesn't look good. You need to explain yourself better, or be prepared for heavy criticism. From me. Olorinish (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please redirect your efforts to areas more in need of your specialties

If you get bored of trying to substantiate your "bad hand" accusations (and you will, because I've been editing entirely in good faith) may I recommend that you have a look at Cryonics, Cryogenics, and related articles? For example, please see that this is used as the first source in the intro to Cryonics, and has been for some time.

Wouldn't your time be better spent routing out that sort of thing than trying to pull Cold fusion -- about which reasonable scientists have disagreed and will continue to disagree -- to your particular interpretation? Do you really want to sully your reputation any further by going around trying to expose editors for having a different point of view than your own? Are you even familiar with the recent literature on cold fusion? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for a voluntary topic ban

ScienceApologist, I am disgusted by your accusation that PCarbonn has a conflict of interest since you refuse to back it up with hard evidence. I think it would be a good idea for you to voluntarily refrain from editing the cold fusion page and the cold fusion discussion page for a period of one year. Olorinish (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ororinish, please assume good faith and stop your poor faith and uncivil edits to this talk page - please see the harassment policy and our civility guidelines. Having a difference of opinions is no reason to ask someone to remove themselves from editing an article. If you feel you have a problem with SA, please refer to the dispute resolution procedures. Verbal chat 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that after reading Verbal's comment, I deleted something I wrote. Olorinish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy revert

Please take a look at my comment in Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard. You reverted my edit. Before I try to get around your reversion, I'd be interested in your thinking. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy availability image

Hi, I just wanted to say that I replaced the image you removed because this debate has come up before. There are a good amount of editors who disagree with your assesment on various grounds, so I think the best course would be to take the usage of the image to the talk page. Nothing personal. NJGW (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wackos

[2] Shouldn't that be "cold fusion fringe science promoters"? Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Got through the screener! If there was a way to redact edit summaries I would do so! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Hi ScienceApologist. Sorry to bother you again. When you removed my last warning, I notice you used the edit summary: "Don't need cold fusion wackos whining.." Whether this was aimed at me or another user (and I really don't care which it was at this point), this is a breach of our policy WP:CIVIL. If I see you playing fast and loose with any more of our policies over the next days I will give you a mini-wikibreak without further warning. Just thought I'd let you know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

John has an interesting Quote on his userpage -- " 'Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress' . Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

John should have a read of WP:DTTR. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that misses the point. ScienceApologist appears to indeed have been edit warring on the cold fusion article. Rather than grousing about the exact nature of the warning John gave, it might be useful for his friends to remind ScienceApologist not to edit war. That series of edits is in my view far enough over the line (with snarky edit summaries to boot) to be well worthy of a block. That John chose to warn instead of block was a kindness. Biting back at that? Not so much of a kindness at all. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. If you think that warning was "kind" rather than snarky patronising then heaven help wikipedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The kindness was in warning, rather than blocking, not the wording. The wording is contained in a template so if the wording isn't, in your view, kind enough, you know what to do, it's a wiki. BUt you miss the point as well. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cold fusion/1, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually looks like he's commenting on the edits, not the editor, and in this case of a civil POV pusher. NJGW (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're right. However, words like 'bollocks' are never needed, however strong your feelings over cold fusion are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate WP:BOLLOCKS for deletion, then? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. Don't use language like that again, and be especially careful in future, so that we all know exactly what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

20 blocks means I'm used to it. And many of those blocks were overturned. People have a hard time dealing with me fairly, assuming that WP:AGF shouldn't have to apply to me. Don't you make that mistake now, and don't lecture me on "language" unless you have a degree in linguistics, comparative literature, or can expound academically on the varying standards of the "vulgar". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entering into discussion with you about this, because it's not up for discussion. Limit your language, and try to be civil. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I do this more than most people who oppose me appreciate. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about WP:CANVAS

Hey, I just noticed nobody has given you notification of this thread. Some concerns that your recent notifications about Cold fusion have crossed a bit of a line. I sympathize, but tend to agree: 13 pages is a bit excessive for what is clearly a non-neutral notification. I don't have a problem with notifying a non-neutral invitation for a few buddies to show up, and I don't have a problem with a wide distribution of a neutral notification, but I agree with what others have said, that this was stretching the CANVAS guidelines a bit far.

Cheers, and keep up the good work at fighting FRINGE! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC and Wikiproject notices might be a better way to proceed in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I know of no other way to get the attention that is required other than posting to a wide range of individuals, projects, and noticeboards. I'm sick and tired of people trying to tie my hands in disputes and will, frankly, not stand for it. If Pcarbonn can get a free pass telling people on his pro-cold fusion blog to edit cold fusion articles, surely I can let people on the project, above the table, know that there is a problem with POV-Pushing at Cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the blog thing is true, then that's meat puppetry and seems blockable. You mentioned SPA accounts somewhere else before... maybe that's an issue to pursue. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You did it in good faith, that's true, but next time try and keep the notifications to three or four :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And which three-or-four should those be? I placed a notice on FTN yesterday to no avail. What's the alternative? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to give it more time than one day to generate a reply. I didn't have as much of a problem with the tagging at the article as much as the lack of discussion that ensued. More time was spent posting on over a dozen noticeboards, projects and talk pages than discussing what the tags were about. I don't see a major issue with the notifications as long as it remains neutral, perhaps with the wording of, "I noticed that you were involved with the Cold Fusion article in the past. Your assistance may be required; please see the respective talk page for further information. Thanks." seicer | talk | contribs 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you think you need to canvas more than three or four people (and I don't doubt there is value in doing so), then to be in compliance with WP:CANVAS it would be better if the notification were worded neutrally. (I mean, seriously, do you think that OrangeMarlin is going to see a neutrally-worded notification about a POV dispute on Cold fusion and think to himself, "Gee, I better get over there and defend the brave scientists working on condensed matter nuclear reactions!" :p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's applicable to an extent, but if you are canvassing to push a certain objective or point, then that can be considered disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Or your harassment of science-editors could be construed as disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is a total red herring here. It has nothing to do with policies on canvassing. Uh, so can I spam ten thousand talk pages with an ad for cheap Cialis and invoke WP:CENSOR to defend my actions?

Look, hey, if you think that the value of non-neutral canvassing exceeds the cost of having people complain about it every time you do it, go ahead. It's not like anybody is going to block you for this, because, as you pointed out, it's only mildly disruptive at best. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal that if you are going to canvas a dozen different pages that you use a neutrally-worded message. You are still free to say whatever you want to individuals (that's where WP:CENSOR comes in, right?). Non-neutral canvassing leaves a bad taste in the mouth and undermines what you are trying to do. So just word it neutrally and you're fine. I really, really don't see what the problem is... I'm not trying to attack you, I'm not pushing an "anti-science agenda" (and I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I would be deeply offended if it were). I'm just saying that here is something you can do to conform to Wikipedia policy and avoid some of the heat that your opponents bring without really impeding your efforts in any meaningful way that I can see. Why is that a bad thing again?! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that your invocation of "non-neutral" is the issue. That's censorship because you've not demonstrated what is "non-neutral" about my requests for help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um.... really? You really don't understand why people thought your canvassing note was non-neutral?! Dude... Why are you so stubborn? I really, really, really don't understand. If you keep being such an asshole, then the community is going to continue to buy into every one of your opponents' allegations, whether valid or not, and the project will be a worse place. Maybe instead of wasting so much time saying, "Fuck you! I'ma do what I want!", maybe instead when good faith uninvolved editors mention something like this to you, you could just say, "I will take that under consideration" and continue on with improving the project. Just a thought... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thread

As nobody seems to have done so, I'm letting you know that there is another ANI thread with your name on it... — Scientizzle 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi - I was wondering how WP:OVERSIGHT applied to this edit? You're not meeting the "non-public personal information" clause - the information is publicly available on Wikipedia - it's not removal of potentially libellous information, as the information is not untrue or unduly weighted - and copyright issues don't come into it. Is there another reason that I'm not up to speed on? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're calling it under case two, it has to be potentially libellous, in addition to the reasons you've stated. Is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You shall have to make your own judgement per WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - where's the legal threat? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is none. That's why you have to decide for yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's no libel, and no legal threat, what he's doing doesn't violate any policies. Decision made. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right: my decision is that this summary doesn't belong in Wikipedia space. I will act to remove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'll help you where I can, if you want - but you've got to make sure you follow the correct policies and procedures. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer for help. I may avail myself of it at some point in the future. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In the concerns expressed here. Feel free to let me know if further clarification is required. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's invocation of WP:CIV against you is just another example of her general incompetence. Am I allowed to say that Elonka is incompetent? Or is evaluation of the skills of the worst administrators here on Wikipedia a verbotten topic? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To evaluate administrators, WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI are the ways to go about it. Please, please try and stay civil - even if she is "incompetent", as you put it, being rude will not solve things, and will just get you another block. 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up the rank incompetence of others is necessarily uncivil. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're sadly mistaken - Elona found it offensive, and frankly, so did I. Be nicer in future :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you please explain why you found it offensive? Alternatively, I welcome an explanation from Elonka as to why she finds it uncivil. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bates Method

Hi, i used to notice you around a lot at RfC's for science articles, so was wondering if you could give some help with an impasse over at Bates Method (assuming you are still here / back).

The article cannot pass GA as it has NPOV tags, but the editor adding the tag wont explain what is NPOV specifically, and recommends we give up trying to improve the page. As an editor that would clearly not be biased in favor of a fringe science, could you help us identify what the NPOV problems are specifically? or even add tags to specific section rather than the top of the page, to aid in improving in a step-wise manner?

As a scientist, i read the evidence and it is clearly a discredited fringe method, but i'm probably too easily influenced by facts rather than vague "tone POV" problems that go over my head. I'd never heard of the concept before, and got involved through the WP:FEED request for help from newbies page, but my advice to "dicuss on the talk page" is obviously not sufficient if editors wont discuss specifics.

Thanks for your time (if you've not been driven away altogether).Yobmod (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here. Perhaps you could tell the editor that disagreements are resolved by dispute resolution. Stonewalling is not a legitimate way to resolve a disagreement. Tendentiously adding an NPOV tag without explaining the problem might be a form of disruption that could get an editor blocked if they persist long enough. Please do try to encourage them to get into DR. If tendentious or disruptive editing continues, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is soo functional. Excuse me while I wretch. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was part of dispute resolution: "Turn to others for help". I already tried "focus on the content" and "talk page discussion". I just got pointed to policy pages, lol :-).Yobmod (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers

One way to deal with non-homicidal stalkers is to tell them exactly where to find you. When they call, be really boring (I have a knack). After a while, they will lose all interest. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking sucks - sorry (really) to hear that you have that problem. I've found that "Privacy Director" is a useful service, it forces CallerID blocked calls to give a name before connecting the call. Ronnotel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

I strongly recommend discussion before simply redirecting Aspartame controversy to aspartame. The separate article was created through consensus of quite a few editors. If it is going to be undone, the content should be merged back into the main article, rather than just eliminated by converting to a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time please check the top of the talk page to see if the article has been nominated to AfD recently. In this case an AfD closed as "keep" just a week ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspartame_controversy --Enric Naval (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold. No harm done. Reversion seemed to work out fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice and reading material

Regarding this thread, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and walk away from some controversies. :-) Bearian (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the consensus seems to be you're doing a great job - so be calm while you do it ... ;) Verbal chat 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't be calm, being silent is a good second choice. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think Jehochman has made a good proposal over on the ANI discussion. Verbal chat 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful with what you say. You're doing great work reforming cold fusion, and I don't want to see that project run out of steam. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be as careful as possible. Thanks for the support. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that case has now been resolved. However, remember that each time you use ill-considered language you make it easier for people like Iantresman to cause you trouble. I don't mind you being blunt and don't want to tie your hands in the thankless task you deal with, but you must consider carefully how any remark you make could be used by the unfriendly eyes that scan your contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab - Aspartame Controversy

Hi there. You have been named as a participant in a MedCab case regarding the article Aspartame controversy. I have opened the case here. I invite you to visit the case, read over the ground rules, and indicate whether or not you wish to proceed with informal mediation to resolve the current dispute. [ roux ] [x] 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SA. Thank you for indicating that you will not participate in the MedCab. I hope that other ways are found to resolve the dispute. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries at WP:FRINGE

I've commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back to ScienceApologist about the edit summmaries you have used. I also see that you asked Elonka not to post here. I'm not going to get involved right now on the thorny question of how much control someone should have over who can post to their talk page, but I'll point you to my comment in that ANI thread here, where I've endorsed Elonka's actions where she left warnings for people. I suggest you discuss things at WT:FRINGE. Your last post there seems to have been on 19 August. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Technique

Please could you take a look at this article as I'm not sure how accurate it is and how much it's skewed in favour of the Alexander technique being fact/verifiably leading to improvements (which seems likely.) You needn't get involved lol unless you want to, simply message me if you wish. I'm sorry if I led you to getting in trouble on Aspartame controversy :( I'm going through the whole Alt med category trying to NPOV/improve it. Sticky Parkin 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Ufologists

Sincere apologies, Science Apologist, for having spawned a zombie that now refuses to die. I'd happily kill it ... only created it to bleed off some of the goo obscuring the rotten wound that was the UFO article, which I thought at the time worth a resuscitation attempt. It's taken on a life of its own, now, but perhaps still serves the purpose of keeping some of the irrelevant crackpots out of the core article? Adhib (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Mediation - Aspartame controversy

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aspartame controversy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Twoggle (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

30-day page ban from editing WP:FRINGE

ScienceApologist, you were already cautioned about edit-warring at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline,[3][4][5] and multiple admins expressed concerns about the situation at WP:ANI.[6] However, upon your return to Wikipedia today, I see you went right back to reverting at the guideline again,[7] in violation of the existing consensus that had developed at the talkpage.

As I'm sure you know, you are already under risk of restrictions from multiple ArbCom cases, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Under the authority of the Pseudoscience case, I am now instituting a page ban. You are not to make any further edits to the guideline at Wikipedia:Fringe theories for the next 30 days. You are welcome to participate at the talkpage, but please let other editors make any necessary changes to the actual guideline. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)