User talk:Unomi

Everything is wrong. Ha.

Meritocracy?

← I am going to take a break from editing wikipedia until it is more clear how the policies and guidelines are meant to be followed. It clearly is a waste of energy to discuss policy matters with people who admit that they have not read them and are not open to applying them once they have. I can only hope that the community gives guidance to them or myself. My 'suspect' knowledge of wikipedia policy come from nothing more or less sinister than intellectual curiousity coupled with reading comprehension. Anyone with the power to do so can see the server logs for correlation between me reading policy and 'pushing' for having it applied. If anyone wants to discuss this further I am on freenode as unomi which has been my registered nick there for more than 4 years. Unomi (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Unomi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Eldereft (cont.) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith

This complaint is inappropriate. First, you are assuming bad faith and making false accusations about two good faith editors. Second, there is no 3RR on the part of Keepcalm. Finally, the noticeboard is not even close to the place to resolving your issues. You need to step back, review Wikipedia policy, starting with WP:NPOV, before you embarrass yourself any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have this the wrong way around, bad faith was assumed on his part when he started deleting my edits without explaining his reasoning. I clearly explained why I thought the edits were appropriate and he never responded, merely kept deleting and eventually seemed to enlist the help of Tom Harrison who also made unjustified deletions. Unomi (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not repeat yourself on my talk page. I watch your page, and I'll answer here, as it clearly states at the top of my user talk--don't waste my time. And you are bordering on a personal attacks if you continue to accuse two editors of colluding. You have no proof of that, none whatsoever. Keepcalm has not even gotten close to 3RR. You are new around here, but you are getting really close to becoming problematic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cute. Unomi (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to assist in resolving this issue you should direct your efforts at spelling out clearly and precisely what it is you take issue with. Baiting will not help you. Unomi (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Aspartame controversy for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame_controversy

Welcome to Wikipedia! I wouldn't recommend Aspartame_controversy as a good place to get your feet wet on Wikipedia. It's a toughie. The article isn't about aspartame -- it's about a controversy about aspartame. But don't let it scare you away from Wikipedia altogether. It would be easier to gain Wikipedia experience on easier articles.

There is quite a lot of controversy over Aspartame_controversy, and I don't know of any way to calm things down over there. I don't think there is a consensus there on what the article should be about, or even how an encyclopedia article should be structured. I stumbled into that hornet's nest with the vague notion that I could learn a bit about the controversy and make the article more NPOV. I soon stumbled back out again, convinced that I could not, at this time, reach my goal of improving that article by working to improve that article.

It seems to me that OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn have become frustrated by their interaction with other editors of Aspartame_controversy. Both of these editors have a lot of experience editing contentious articles. You can find their signed comments on pages where discussion precedes administrative action. I have seen them make good points about biased and intransigent single-issue editors. Since you are a new editor who has only posted on a single topic, they may see you that way.

I hope your interaction with OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn over at Talk:Aspartame_controversy won't make you feel less interested in working on Wikipedia. Certainly, they were not particularly gentle in their responses to your newbie transgressions. I do disagree with OrangeMarlin's assertion that "There is absolutely no reason to be civil or nice to you any further". I would choose to assume good faith. No doubt, they are interested only in improving the article.

You seem genuinely interested in improving the article. I am a newbie here myself. For what it's worth, here are my opinions.

• There is a dispute resolution process, but don't think you'll get the results you want by starting a formal process.
• Stick to the letter and the spirit of WP:EQ, WP:COOL, and WP:TALK. No matter what you may think of anyone else's behavior. On the article talk pages, stick to talk of how to improve the article. Avoid discussing the dispute. Discussions on how to resolve a dispute might fit better on personal talk pages.
• Sometimes, experienced editors aren't interested in explaining to a newcomer why a reference is or is not WP:RS. You may want to seek out members of verification projects as you gain experience.
• Assume good faith. If you adress other editors on their own talk pages, maintain WP:COOL. Let your words speak for themselves. Don't accuse anyone of unfairness, or bother to discuss anyone else's acussations of WikiLawyering or WikiBullying. Such discussions won't help resolve a dispute.
• Because your user page is not a good place to discuss proposed improvements to the article, I won't talk specifics about the article here. Here are some general thoughts on WP:OR and WP:RS.
  • I think User:Tom_harrison made a good point that primary sources are not always best.
  • It is pretty easy to read primary sources and draw your own conclusions. That would be synthesis. Which is WP:OR. Wikipedia should state the facts -- these sources say there is an aspartame controversy. The readers can go on to draw their own conclusions.
  • Articles on the Aspartame Controversy from generally-respected news organizations might be the most appropriate to document that there is a controversy.
  • Giving a lot of weight to the current back-and-forth in the peer-reviewed journals may be inappropriate. The work is obviously still underway, and drawing conclusions would be synthesis WP:OR. A small section summarizing "recent scientific work" might satisfy everyone's NPOV concerns.
  • It is not WP:OR to state the conclusions of GAO HRD-87-46. That report is a WP:RS.
  • It would be WP:OR to write the article to comment directly on the validity of the survey of 69 self-selected scientists in GAO HRD-87-46. That survey was the original research of the authors of the report, and was not subject to peer review.

Best of Luck to you! --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments and background information.

I must admit I was taken aback by the responses of User:orangemarlin et al. I also found it pretty funny that they would on one hand throw wiki tags at me without further explanation on how it applied, and then later accuse me of sock puppetry when I read them and used them. I have and continue to try to engage them in open discussion about how to move forward.

When I saw the line regarding the survey information I felt that it was poorly written, it was poor English, pure and simple. I tried to find ways where the information could be included in the least of contentious ways, which would be a simple table reproduced from the primary source.

The GAO87 is not used as a 'scientific study' it never claimed to be one. As the article already contained some of the survey information I figured that the inclusion of the survey was not contentious.

The 2 direct quotes that got the whole thing started are taken directly from GAO87 as statements of fact. It is hard to see how anyone who read the source document could have found it contentious.

I am considering getting further guidance on how GAO87 can be used as per wikipedia guidelines. Unomi (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"XXX controversy" articles are more tricky than ordinary articles. They are not about "XXX" itself, but about the controversy. And they're controversial. You won't see everyone's best WP:EQ. You'll get a warped view of what a good Wikipedia collaboration ought to look like. Other editors are less likely to offer you gentle guidance. I think you've seen this already. OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn spend a lot of effort defending articles against undue-overweighting from fringe POVs. They step in when the gentler souls have fled. They don't see themselves as school-teachers. No matter how you try, you may not get the type of discussion you want at Aspartame controversy.

Better to learn somewhere else. How about Peanut, or anything on the WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup list. Talk to any of the Citation Cleanup participants. Take a step back. Apologies again for offering unsolicited advice. Go learn, and enjoy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A personal plea

Unomi,

I apologise for the alphabet soup that sometimes accompanies Wikipedia editing and disputes. It can be confusing, even annoying, for new editors. But it is also, often, the way we communicate. You were recognised as a new incarnation in a long line of socks at this article. That's partly why people didn't bother with niceties. Again, I apologise if everyone has been wrong about you and you are simply a new editor with an uncharacteristically advanced knowledge of Wikipedia editing.

At the moment, your single-purpose edits are viewed by other editors, including me, as tendentious and disruptive. Taking the same issue to multiple noticeboards is seen as "forum shopping", or trying until you get the answer (or an answer) you want. Reporting me for violating the three reversion rule (for a single reversion!), was puzzling, and you are fortunate nothing happened.

Please, if you want to be seen as anything other than a single-purpose, agenda-driven editor, take some time to reflect on your recent behaviour and take steps to change it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me; I accept and cherish your apology :)

I happen to be a computer programmer and deal often with wikistyle templates and have read my fair share of RFCs, while I am sure I still have much to learn, following the examples of others allowed me to apply the basics. I did not intend to report you for violating 3RR which you certainly did not, I wanted to report that we were embroiled in an editwar and I needed outside assistance in getting to the root cause of it(as none of the reverting parties were particularly talkative). As for 'forum shopping', I don't really think I did that, a number of issues seemed to be raised as is underscored by the number of wikitags thrown in the mix, these had to be resolved in different forums, I also had an unclear picture of where to go with these issues.

I am not quite sure what is entailed by 'Single-purpose, agenda-driven' editor, I knew nothing about aspartame or the surrounding controversy until a few days ago. As I've stated elsewhere, I happened to come across the Sweet Misery 'docu' and decided to read up on it wikipedia. I must admit I was surprised by the lack of a mention of it, as err, exists. I also decided to read some of the sources and came across some curious discrepancies compared to the Wikipedia article.

I would think that it is quite normal and natural that newcomers to wikipedia will find one initial article that they want to improve, rather than throwing themselves over a swath of articles all at once. I hope to later add and improve other articles but obviously this one has bogged me down for now.

Of course wikipedia will attract all kinds of folk, and not all will be able to improve or appreciate what wikipedia strives to be.

In my mind there are good and important reasons as to why Assume Good Faith, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are important tenets of wikipedia. They need to be honored no matter what the situation, IMO. Perhaps down the road I will consider myself so great an authority and wikicitizen of sufficient standing that I will forget that these rules apply to me as well, but I sincerely hope not.

Returning to the aspertame controversy article: I will continue to work on it for the foreseeable future, I continue to hope that all involved work together to improve the article. This is not because I have vested interests or that I wish to push a certain POV, but simply because it is deeply problematic the way it is now, if I were sufficiently surprised at missing information to add it, then so (I hope) would others. Hopefully we can save them the effort and allow them to work on other aspects of wikipedia instead. I think the term WP:TEND is inappropriately directed at me, please see the second to last item listed under 'characteristics of problem editors'. As far as I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, the only information that I have tried to add has been well cited and pertinent. Also please see what [disruptive] means in this context and take a fresh look at the talk pages. Please let me know if you still feel that I was the one being disruptive or tendentious. I promise that I will take your further comments to heart.

Again, Thank you for your apology and taking the time to respond to me here, I hope that we will all laugh about this later :) Unomi (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Aspartame controversy for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have filed a report on your tendentious editing behavior here. I am also intending to add a sock report, since it is clear you are an abusive sock of one or more editors. That should be posted soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to bringing this drama to the appropriate authorities, I welcome the upcoming discussion. Unomi (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, I am curious as to why you bring it up, perhaps you could clarify. By the way have you seen Civil? Unomi (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please see this sockpuppet investigation.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this should clear the matter up. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus, Purpose, and goals at Aspartame controversy

The aspartame controversy is a pretty wild ride. The wikipedia article Aspartame controversy doesn't have to be so wild, even though it can state that things are pretty wild ... in the wild. Here are some questions. I don't need to know the answers. What is your goal at the article? If it is consistant with wikipedia policy, are there any actions you can take that will help you reach that goal?

Are you doing anything that is distracting you from reaching that goal? If so, are there other actions you could choose? You have considerable energy. How can you use it effectively? You only have the power to choose your own actions.

Have you ever observed a Wiki project or article where editors collaborated in a congenial fashion, used "this is not a vote"ing to spell things out and reach consensus? I was an editor at Wikijunior:Solar System when it first started up, until sometime in 2005. The work was sometimes frustrating, but people got along. They offered their opinion, voted, reached consensus, joined teams, and made progress. Of course, the level of controversy there was much lower. I think a non-controversial project would be an excellent place to observe and practice the ideals of wiki etiquette and working by consensus.

If you cannot reach your goal by working to reach your goal -- what is the purpose of your work? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Again, I don't need you to share the answers to any of these questions with me. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that wikipedia is too important to simply 'give up'. There is no goal, only process. Sorry for the short answers but I am a bit pressed for time. Perhaps we can talk of this later. I am looking forwards to the 'new start'.

Don't sweat the small things. Without a goal or purpose, how do you know which process to implement? --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked - apparent sockpuppet of User:Immortale

This account is indefinitely blocked due to apparent sockpuppetry, operated by User:Immortale. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(block message removed following unblock - gwh)

{{unblock|Because I am not a sockpuppet. Please review the evidence, please run checkuser, this is frankly disconcerting}} Unomi (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So checkuser was run, and it apparently came up :

For what it's worth, this is a really really really strong negative checkuser result. Does the sort of editing involved seem like that of someone going out of their way to be dishonest? Just a thought. (Only reason I'm here is I saw Unomi's unblock request.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Predictably, orangemarlin continues to hold that I am a sockpuppet based on

conclusive evidence of behavioral sockpuppetry 

The details of this evidence is unclear. Apparently it centers around the fact that I disagree with OMs POV and have imperfect sentence structure. I have tried to address some of the misapprehensions that OM at and others hold here. Unomi (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note: this user came to #wikipedia-en-unblock, and after cursory inspection of their edits, I'm not sure that Unomi is the same person as Immortale. A couple of things stand out to me:

• 08 March @ 21:53 by Immortale
• 08 March @ 21:54 by Unomi.

A little too overlapped yet manic for it to be the same person.

• newbie 3rr report.
• Similarities in talk page postings might be due to monkey-see-monkey-do of a new user trying to ascertain The Wikipedia Way, so to speak.
• Controversial articles tend to draw in more people, more frequently (and make them seem like new socks).
• Sharply different geolocation on the ips that were visible without checkuser.

Could still be a sock/meat of someone, or it could just be a new, quick-to-catch-on user. But, my initial guess is that at the very least Unomi != Immortale. Keep in mind, I'm also typing this while up late and in an WP:AGF mood, so I could be totally wrong. :P I'd support an unblock, though. I'd also suggest that the editor in question possibly consider undertaking edits elsewhere on the encyclopedia (the backlog? Maybe other controversial articles? :P), mainly to better establish an editing pattern outside of the given topic (and thus avoid allegations of sockpuppetry).

--slakr^\ talk / 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

Checkuser evidence indicates that the behavioral identification I made above was likely a mistake. While it is not impossible that you and Immortale were somehow working together, the checkuser was emphatic that you're not anywhere close to each other.

Reexamining the evidence, while your cooperation with Immortale and behavior were extremely suspicious, I don't see enough cause to conclude that you have to be coordinating at a distance somehow if you really are some distance apart. While I am still suspicious about some behavioral similarities, we have a higher standard of evidence than mere suspicion, even by experienced administrators. I don't think I can meet any reasonable burden of proof versus a verified geographical distance between you two.

On that basis, I have unblocked both of your accounts. While your behavior raised eyebrows and caused me to investigate in more depth, if you really aren't coordinating with Immortale then there's nothing about the current behavior that requires an administrator to intervene at this time.

I apologize for the disruption the block caused.

I want to ask you to make an effort to cooperate with OrangeMarlin on a civil and constructive basis - there is obviously some pain and distrust there now. Hopefully you all can get past your mutual distrusts and cooperate on making the encyclopedia better.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with unblock notice) FWIW, I strongly support an unblock. I have rarely seen such an unequivocally negative checkuser statement as that about Unomi, Karloff and Immortale at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. As to disruption: The only disruption that I have seen on Talk:Aspartame controversy was that caused by the article's current owners: OrangeMarlin and Verbal. Their disruptive (to the point of childish) behaviour can be observed particularly well at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy. It is evident that these two users have zero interest in reaching a consensus, presumably because consensus means something can be changed about the article and they are happy with the status quo. To prevent a consensus (or at least with that effect):

• they have endlessly repeated sockpuppet accusations in response to on-topic contributions by their opponents or attempts at reconciliation;
• they have told their opponents
  • that they need to obtain a consensus before editing,
  • that even if a consensus were reached it would be useless because a consensus can't trump policies,
  • that the particularly strict standard of WP:MEDRS applies to every aspect of this article about a controversy that was widely discussed in the popular media, and
  • that they are POV pushing;

none of this was supported by evidence that I could see;

• they have not addressed (AFAICT) the complaint that the article makes statements about a government document that are contradicted by a straightforward reading of the document itself, claiming that reading the document is original research and that it cannot be used because of WP:MEDRS.

This is probably not an exhaustive list. In any case, nobody should be blocked based only on repeated unfounded accusations that they are disruptive or a sockpuppet. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Open Letter to OrangeMarlin

As Orangemarlin choose to delete my reply I am posting it here and reaffirm my position as stated.

I know they are socks--just have to prove it a bit more. I think they should be indeffed for reasons way outside of sockpuppetry, but I figured it was the easiest way to do it. Now Unomi and Immortale are going to enjoy running amok. This place sucks sometimes. But I appreciate your blocking them long enough to giving some breathing space to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be overreacting slightly, no one is going to 'run amok'. But the article does need work and it does need to have more of the narrative that led to the current state of affairs. I realize that you are probably engaged in many articles besides the Aspartame Controversy, but I think that if you took the time to familiarize yourself further with the sources you will agree that there is plenty of room for improvement. I respect what I understand to be your desire to minimize fear mongering, but I also think that in doing so you do an injustice to the readers and underestimate their intelligence. As I have stated before :

We should be documenting the claims of 'evidence' and 'misconduct' by the minority view(as this is a minority view article), fully and correctly and then counterbalance that with the evidence of the majority view. I believe that is a matter of policy, it also happens to be the most effective way to defuse scare mongering and conspiracy theories.

Finally, and please don't take this the wrong way, perhaps you should see Assume bad faith. I think we still have a chance to resolve this without a total meltdown. Unomi (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I am quite serious. If you wish, we can talk on irc and see if we can't find a way to work our way out of this. Unomi (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, re your message at AN/I: please note WP:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

RE : WP:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation

CopperTwig I apologize for any inappropriate 'outing', truthfully I had not kept that section in mind. However and separately:

A line in that passage reads: Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution

Unomi (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive conduct.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Aspartame controversy, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop personal attacks such as this one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to histrionics? Looks like an accurate description to me. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Your accusation of personal attacks is hardly more substantiated than this one was. There is a user conduct RFC waiting for you. I will start it when the dust has settled. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

if it quacks like a duck

"I believe those involved do not follow scientific principles or value intellectual honesty."

Yes, well put, and this is correct. The methods used by the pseudoscientists are anti-scientific, and these are the chosen methods of the anti-pseudoscience crowd on Wikipedia. Their desire to include their personal biases and platforms in every article they can possible wikilawyer and editwar their way into is destroying legitimate articles on Wikipedia. In particular, the loudest anti-pseudoscience editors do appear to want to or be able to read and quote accurately the references they provides to support their anti-pseudoscienc soap boxes in en.Wiki article space. Their soapbox, not the science, is the message.

Thanks for saying it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to counter pseudoscience is by use of scientific method: logic, evidence, use of reliable sources etc. Anything else muddies the waters and makes it harder to distinguish which side is pseudoscience. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the pseudoscientific crowd is that they will selectively apply the criteria for what constitutes the above. One mans PR statement is another mans MEDRS, one persons General Accounting Office report becomes politically motivated primary source minority view. In general the tactics employed during discussion read like something out of a guerrilla warfare handbook. They present their argument so vaguely and generally that there is no 'front' to attack, once one issue has been shown to be resolved then it becomes another issue, hours can be spent in such a fashion. If the topic hasn't successfully been shifted then finally the joker that is WP:WEIGHT comes out. WP:WEIGHT seems to be understood exclusively in a exclusionist fashion, mercurial in its ability to be applied to any aspect and in a multitude of often internally inconsistent manners. Then end result becomes that engaging with the forces of pseudoscience becomes a Sisyphean exercise in masochism. Unomi (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a confusing use of terms here. Unomi (and KP Botany), you use the expressions "pseudoscientists" and "pseudoscientific crowd", when I think you mean "pseudoskeptical". (Even then, that would be an improper use of the term when applied to those editors you oppose.) Unfortunately you weaken your incivility case against them because you are pushing a pseudoscientific POV, while they are defending a mainstream scientific POV, but possibly using pseudoskeptical (incivil) means in the process. It's hard, especially for seasoned scientists and medical doctors (which is the case with your opponents in the Aspartame controversy matter) to be patient with those who exhibit great lack of understanding of the scientific process, and they simply blow their stacks and become incivil. If you were defending the scientific POV, you'd have a much stronger case. That's why ScienceApologist has lasted so long here, in spite of often being incivil. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I don't recognize the scenario you are describing. My edits have so far centered around fixing WP:PN wording, specifically regarding the GAO questionnaire responses. It is an issue that random readers continue to comment on because it is unclear in its current form. I would like you to point to which POV you feel that I am 'pushing', I have repeatedly stated that I hold no particular view on aspartame, but even if I did I would not try to misrepresent the available information to suit my POV. It is beyond my power to weaken any case of incivility against anyone, refraining from incivility is per WP:CIVIL a core principle and always applies, with no excuses. I understand that one of the involved editors have stated that they are a cardiologist, I think that there is considerable doubt in the scientific community regarding ones association with the medical field translating into being final arbiter on what scientific consensus or even mainstream scientific 'POV', should such a thing exist, is. A person that is professionally involved in the medical field should find no great difficulty in stating their case clearly, coherently and with appropriate use of sources. I agree that I have a lot to learn, and I welcome the opportunity to do so, but that does not translate into standing idly by while unilateral and poorly, if at all, justified changes are being made to an article that I consider myself a contributor to. The recent omega-3 debacle clearly shows that it is not appropriate. Regarding the labeling, I agree that it is not particularly useful to label or generalize, it distracts from the individual actions and allows a host of logical fallacies to creep into a discussion. Unomi (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I got caught up in the terminology you were using to accuse other editors and began using it myself. I was also under the impression that you believed the conspiracy theories about the supposed extreme dangers of using Aspartame in normal quantities. If you don't believe them, then your issue is more related to the appropriateness of adding such a large amount of content that other editors consider to be unnecessary. The issue about how the controversy over your attempts has been dealt with is a related but different matter. The impatience and lack of cooperation you have perceived is what I have addressed above. Sorry for the confusion. If you don't believe in the Aspartame dangers idea, I retract some of my comments, and also distance myself from some of my use of your terminology as well, since I possibly shouldn't have used it in that manner. My main concern was that another term would serve your purpose better. I hope that at least that point was understood. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I too wish to apologize for adopting inappropriate and inflammatory terminology. I have previously tried to agitate for minimizing 'Us vs Them' rhetoric, it is regrettable that I now managed to 'fall in the trap'. I read your POV on NPOV and stance on undue weight, and I find myself in total agreement with your positions. I personally feel that my efforts are exactly trying to realize those principles. As for claimed dangers of aspartame, I really, truly, do not care. I smoke tobacco and I drink alcohol, I am quite certain that these are, by many orders of magnitude, more harmful than aspartame ever could be. My interest in the aspartame controversy as it stands now is twofold and admittedly somewhat conflicting. 1. I believe that hysteria and conspiracy theories are dangerous, for some it is just a hobby to pass the time for others it might satisfy some psychological coping mechanism. I think the absolutely best way to defuse that is by presenting the claims and counter arguments so that doubt is dispelled, I also believe that this coincides perfectly with the goals of wikipedia (documenting human knowledge). 2. I believe that the history of the aspartame controversy is quite interesting, it makes for compelling reading and insight into how important changes of how the FDA assesses additives came about. If these issues are not adequately addressed in the article it will continue to be a magnet for disruption. Further, I have pledged that I will bring the article to GA status, I think it is an interesting and viable challenge. Unomi (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

YOU get an EXTRA SPECIAL THANK YOU for BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHOUTING AND DELIBERATE HYPOCRISY. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

SOMEtimes you HAVE TO read BEtween the LInES. Unomi (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly what I was thinking, Scarian. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should go ahead and move this section to Scarians talk page then. Unomi (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?

The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame

If you don't have the time the guys that want to change the article should propose their NPOV version. If not they are not allowed to cut what they don't like. Open your eyes and don't be shy! :-) --Calgaco (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in the background of the Burdock Group regarding the aspartame review and "neutrality" of the scientists, here is a fair evaluation of that. Unfortunately this link is not accepted within Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore I mention it here. Immortale (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha WTF. Yeah I can see why this couldn't possibly be used as a secondary source.. Unomi (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Yes achieved them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Called WP:BRD

not WP:edit war until I get my way without discussion. Sheesh. Verbal chat 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that a number of editors have independently of each other found fault with the current wording. Perhaps it would be best if you found a more appropriate phrasing which is less broad Unomi (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. And also Talk:Aspartame controversy and Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Verbal chat 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean, I honestly did find your reply cute. Unomi (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are there to describe the edits. Your repeated abuse of edit summaries is uncivil and appears to be a form of baiting. In order to avoid this appearance, please use edit summaries to describe, and perhaps justify/contextualise, your edit - not to leave comments about other edits or editors or how endearing you find them. The edit summary for your reply above was again inappropriate. Put simply, use the edit summary to summarise your edit. Verbal chat 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like you just did? Unomi (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And please stop trying to be funny, you're not very good at it. Reminds me of some other editors. Verbal chat 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Unomi. I agree with Verbal here. In my view the word "cute" is usually used to characterize people, not edits, so its use can tend to be understood as applying to the person who wrote the comment. "Cute" might mean different things to different people. The point is to avoid comments about people that make those people feel uncomfortable: unless such comments are absolutely necessary and presented in a neutral manner, for example in a dispute resolution forum. Edit summaries are never a good place for comments about other editors; and there aren't always clear lines between comments about comments, and comments about editors. It's best to be extra careful what you write in edit summaries because it's difficult to change them. Edit summaries that describe your edit clearly and in a neutral manner can be very useful.

Verbal, for the same reasons, per User:Coppertwig#Civility and in the interests of promoting a collaborative atmosphere,^{(21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC))} please avoid making remarks about other editors such as "you're not very good at it." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His jokes can have the appearance of baiting, hence I simply advised him (assuming the male pronoun) that it'd be better to avoid that kind of appearance - he doesn't appear to be very good at it. It wasn't made in an edit summary and was contextualised by the discussion above, hence the same reasoning doesn't apply. Thanks, I hope this discussion is now closed. Verbal chat 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, in reply to your comment: your comment which I had quoted doesn't come across to me simply as a request to stop baiting, but as a statement about Unomi's skill at humour. I've amended my comment above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for you

Resolved

Unomi, I have some questions for (only) you here. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good edit

Good work. Sorry for not getting back to you yet about that other entry, I think I need to consider it for a while. In the mean time, no big deal. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Yours, Verbal chat 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to you both :) Unomi (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

JzG

How did you hear about the JzG Rfc? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Via the MfD. I am sure a number of people, myself included, could not help but notice this. Unomi (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am curious Hipocrite, how did you hear about the Rfc? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was watching Abd's contributions because I am concerned that he is wikistalking both myself and others. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my section in the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Moved_from_the_main_page

Thanks for supporting my section, I moved that section to the talk page, along with your endorse, because the creator of the RfC, AbD advised me that it is not a good idea to focus on personal attacks in this RfC. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You appear to be fully aware of WP:3RR and I should not have to remind you not to edit war at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please provide reliable sources on the talk page, as requested. . dave souza, talk 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the ones instigating the edit war, I would suggest that you stop, and take the time to discuss the Bold edits I have had to revert. Unomi (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Who instigates doesn't matter, and breaking 3RR will get you blocked - even if you're "right" and supported by consensus. Darwinism has been recently added, and has now been removed - hence we need to form consensus on the talk page. Verbal chat 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unomi. You have new messages at SV Resolution's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scientific misconduct

The mediator is taking comments: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Scientific_misconduct. Fences and windows (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline for Approval of Aspartame

You expressed an interest in a timeline for the approval of aspartame. I've been working on it. You can help. I've started stuff at User:SV_Resolution/aspartame_controversy_section as a place to collect my thoughts. I'm now moving as much as possible of it to Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines, while improving the formatting and citation of references. could you lend a hand with the grunt-work? Some of the URLS from the references I've used might not be suitable for the article, but they are useful for the timeline, since the newspaper clippings and excerpts from the congressional record are actually visible for anyone to see. The references themselves are all good, if used appropriately in the article. Since your earlier comment on the difficult and frustrating nature of working on Aspartame controversy is that it is too important to give up on, I hope you'll be able to lend a hand. Thanks for any help you can give. It is time consuming. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'd hope you'll take time to refactor it so as not to disrupt the discussion by encouraging improper behavior. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in fact actively trying to discourage improper behavior. But as my intention seems to be misunderstood I will rephrase. Unomi (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Too often editors' bait others then play the victim if any response is inappropriate. Sarcasm can too easily fuel this cycle. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Something Just for You, Unomi

; )Master
of Irony!

;)
--stmrlbs|talk 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Unomi, I can't make a userbox with Incurable Romantic Individualistic Master of Irony unless I write very small

--stmrlbs|talk 17:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Will it make it easier if I told you that kind thoughts are like angels? You can fit NaN of them on a needle, now where is my golden brown?! Unomi (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that, Unomi. So much said in one sentence. You like to do that, don't you?

And, here is your Golden Brown.

--stmrlbs|talk 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I don't have flash and "This video is not available in your country. " I can't dare say, but perhaps it is enough that there is never a frown with my golden brown and she has texture like Sun. Unomi (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, so sorry. I shouldn't assume these videos are available to everyone. But I am glad you are smiling. :)

--stmrlbs|talk 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To steal a joke from Neil Gaiman and Pterry Pratchett, There are two problems with pinheads and the dancing of angels thereon: the great gaping holes between the atoms, and the fact that most of them never bothered to learn how to dance. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Perhaps you have some personal experience to contribute to WP:ANI#Possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters? No obligation, of course. I wonder if this specific scenario is getting so common that we need to mention it at WP:BITE. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans, I am not really familiar with the background, but it certainly seems like the poster was hoping for out-of-process results. I wonder if I am to be accused of being a sock of Anonimu considering the 'significant semantic field overlap' ;) Unomi (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

Last time I checked, I was "considering the discussion", given that I'm the one who started it, and have been participating in it ever since. Kinda hard to not consider it if I'm openly asking you your opinion, as I did in my last post on it, don't you think? Nightscream (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am simply commenting on the fact that you are continuing to remove information which is both verifiable and benign such as on Jim Shooter Unomi (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on ANI

Thanks for your comments on ANI, I don't blame you for not helping out, this is tedious, repetative, mind numbing work. Even my little software slaves, microsoft word advance find and replace wildcard, and autohotkey (excellent easy to use program) don't make it much easier. Thanks again. Ikip (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

just fyi there is a plugin for openoffice which will let you edit wikipedia files thru it, havent used it myself though Unomi (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

COI

Hey, do you realize you're posting on the COI noticeboard talk page instead of the noticeboard itself? Drawn Some (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

err, no I didn't notice that :| Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Unomi (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

changing directions

ook, I'm feeling dizzy [23] --stmrlbs|talk 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

May 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Verbal chat 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that he did not seem to exhibit independent thought is not an attack on the editor, it is a direct comment on the content of the edit, in this case a revert to incendiary language in article space. Also realize that templating regulars can also be considered a breach of etiquette. Unomi (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 9/11 Truth

I just edited the RfC tag you placed to include a reason and categorize it as science and politics rather than policy. Please feel free to recategorize or (neutrally, of course) edit the description of the dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel it si a question of policy, and to my mind fairly clear cut, do we use the terms that are most commonly used in sources or do we choose the ones that suit our POV? Unomi (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, saw your edit over there first and opened discussion at the talkpage. Shall we have it there for wider participation? For what it is worth, I agree that we should always follow sources over personal preference, but I think (though I could be wrong as a new editor to that article) the question here is how the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources actually do describe people holding this view. Also, snicker at the edit summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal states, “I have not edit warred”. And yet his entire contribution to the “Architects and Engineers” article for the last week has consisted solely of reverts. He even breached 3RR here

1 [24] 2. [25] 3. [26] 4. [27]

Have you read..?

Have you read Griffin's latest book or Jones' article 14 points of agreement? The article called 14 Points is short easy reading.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, to be honest I have not really kept up to date with any of the material regarding these topics. My interest at this point is purely as it relates to Wikipedia policy and conduct of editors. Unomi (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand, some of the conduct is pretty out there .. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the quote in full

My view is that using the quote in full is, by a certain way of thinking, a relatively fair and honorable one, but not best. I believe that the quote is radically absurdly contrary to what GAge and the Media say when they note or imply that being an architect is an asset "You have some science behind this" (approximately). By this way of thinking, I think the entire issue is false, misleading and potentially bad faith among those who are pressing for the quote. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we aren't really here to put any topic in a 'certain light', this goes both ways. I don't see the quote as having particular value to the article but apparently it is important enough to edit war over for some.. It is unfortunate that it is written in the language that it is, as it seems to give rise to people singling out 'outside our experience and training' in an effort to discredit them. I believe that a proper 'interpretation' of the quote simply means that they, as trained architects and engineers, had never experienced or were taught about buildings of that type succumbing to fire. I honestly find it hard to understand how anyone can interpret it as if 'they made a mistake' such as verbal did, and considering that he believes that the quote was a 'mistake' on their part I wonder how he rationalizes using it to support self-characterization. Unomi (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove

Per WP:HARRASS, [28]. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)