User talk:Roger Davies

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

pass-out teh baked goodies

Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

My ban

Hi Roger

I am Kehrli, a professional metrologist for more than 20 years. You have participated in indefinitely banning me from writing on metrology, my field of expertise. You have accused me of "improperly using sources to support my views on the use of Kendrick units". As a scientist in this very field for many years, I must take this accusation rather seriously. Could you please give me a hint where you think I used sources improperly?

In addition you voted "agree" for:

The focus of the dispute is a disagreement over the proper unit for measuring Kendrick mass; namely, whether to use Dalton or Kendrick units. Kkmurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others say the Dalton unit is the most commonly used and accepted, while Kehrli (talk · contribs) asserts that the Dalton is not commonly accepted, and that its use violates Wikipedia's guidelines against inaccessible jargon.

Could you please show me where I stated that the Dalton is not commonly accepted?.

Then, assuming that I would have said this, what exactly is wrong with with "asserting that the Dalton is not commonly accepted"? Why is this worth a indefinite ban?

Please note that I asked several times for a definition of the term "Kendrick mass". This term seems not to be defined anywhere in literature. This is why I think it is a jargon term. If you do not agree, could you please supply a definition?

Do you think it is unfair to call a term that is not defined as "inaccessible jargon"?

Kehrli (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Per policy, if the source you are citing doesn't directly support the claim then it is being improperly used. In this instance, you appear to apply the principles from sources to the situation at hand and this is original research; doing so repeatedly is disruptive. I found the evidence of disruption persuasive and had no difficulty supporting the thrust of the case. Even if I did not necessarily agree with every single aspect of the proposed decision, I would not have disagreed sufficiently to oppose. If you wish to contest the decision, you can raise your concerns with the drafting arbitrator (in this case, David Fuchs) or file a request for amendment or a request for clarification.  Roger ^talk 03:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I contact David Fuchs I would really like to understand where you think my citing does not directly support my claims. I am pretty sure this is not the case. Look, metrology is sometimes a difficult issue. I am professionally working in metrology for 20 years, therefore I am pretty confident that I know what I am doing. I have solid and direct sources for every aspect in my edits and I can prove it.

Beside this, I do not think that your claim is correct, namely that "applying the principles from sources to specific situations is OR". I did not find anything like this on the original research page. Nor does it make sense. Just to give you an example: from the "general principle" that no pair number is prime, I can easily conclude that the number 2803850392 (representing the specific situation at hand) is not prime. It says: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research". Now, there is of course some room for interpretation what "evident" means. For somebody unfamiliar with numbers it is maybe not evident that 2803850392 is pair. For somebody not familiar with metrology, some of my statements may not be evident. So please help me find out which statements are not evident. Thanks in advance. Kehrli (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to reconsider if you make a request for amendment or clarification, submitting such fresh evidence as you wish, but I cannot really guide you on how best to present that request, especially when we differ on basic issues like interpretation of policy.  Roger ^talk 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I need to make a request for clarification to learn where you and the other arbitrators think I made a wrong use of a source then I probably need to do this. How do I do a request for clarification? I could not find any procedure for this on Wikipedia. Kehrli (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

• News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

• In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

• Features and admins: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

• Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)