User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

2/0, so what you like me to do with this standoff at RL? You've warned me for edit-warring despite the fact that I've waited at least 36 hours between all reverts. That wasn't my understanding of WP:3RR or 1RR. Meanwhile, the last comment in talk says, "revert it because it fails weight, but don't call it a BLP violation" (I paraphrase). So who's going to do that? Your note about "chilling effects" doesn't make any sense unless you interpret all BLP violations as being about libel (in which case, it should be called the LIBEL policy and it should have a LIBEL noticeboard). The BLP policy says that anything that is biased in a BLP = a BLP violation. End of story. In practice, of course, it seems to be interpreted as anything potentially libellous is a BLP violation worth edit warring over (and of course you need to be a lawyer to even have an opinion on libel). Anything that is not "verifiable" should go to the BLP/N, and as for blatant bias and just incorrect information, that goes to NPOV/N. Have I got this right now? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2/0, for what it's worth you're one of about only 5% of editors in the climate change pages who appears, to me, to be actually, sincerely trying to help. I would genuinely appreciate your advice on what I am supposed to do in a situation such as the Lindzen one where I find myself now. You can contact me offline if you like. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick answer - seek outside input and be the one actively seeking a quality compromise. Long answer - I am only signed in briefly right now, but you absolutely deserve a better answer in a few hours. I just saw you reply from two days ago at your talkpage, so you can expect both that I will answer fully this evening (EST) and that I am not planning to take any ill-considered administrative actions. Please bear with me until then. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Long answer - WP:Edit warring covers a lot more than just 3RR. I think you might have been around since before the latter was merged into the former, so it might be worth a reread. Basically, reverting thrice in any 24 hour period is a sufficient but not necessary bright line beyond which any revert is obviously and blatantly edit warring, not counting the vandalism and BLP exceptions. Slow edit warring, where the same or substantially the same text is returned to or removed from an article over the course of days (or longer - sometimes people will wait months before bulk-reverting to their preferred version), is also detrimental to the progress of building an encyclopedia. You make good arguments at the talk page, but the fact that these two exceptions allow (require) behaviour that is otherwise verboten means that they must be used sparingly. For instance, it would be equally inappropriate for someone else to describe your removal of that section as vandalism and claim a 3RR exception.

Reading the discussion page now as well as three weeks ago, I see an argument that Lindzen's view on global warming is {under/over}represented, a basically related argument about the meaning of contrarian vs. holds contrarian views, and a great deal of discussion of whether our article is an accurate synopsis of what other people consider important about Lindzen's ideas and life. This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter.

As an example where it would also, in my opinion, be inappropriate to invoke the BLP exception, consider Brian David Josephson. This is a Nobel laureate who predicted the eponymous Josephson effect, which is kind of a big deal in condensed matter physics. He also has some ideas about telepathy and some sort of vitalism, and features them prominently on his website. It is my considered opinion that the latter are grossly overweighted in comparison to actual biographical detail or the history of his more widely applied ideas (though the primary treatment of the effect itself should, of course, remain at Josephson effect). Someday when I have the time I intend to prune the article a bit and expand it a lot. In the strong sense, any BLP that fails to treat every relevant particular with precisely measured weight is in violation of the policy - such an article would inform a reader differently than had they read and evaluated all possible sources themself. In practical terms, though, as long as an article is within the realms of reason we should stick to standard editing norms.

I hope that this clarifies my views a bit, and good luck with the talkpage and BLP/N discussions, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with respect to edit-warring. But you said, "This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter." That is not the case here. There is a new tactic for dodging content policies: just refuse to answer objections. I am seeing a number of editors copy one of our ringleaders in this respect and regularly get away with it. So again, I am trying to understand why my decision to revert his material until he will answers the objections is problematic rather than his refusal to answer the objections. He is clearly, wilfully thumbing his nose at the system. And then you come along, as a representative of the Wikipedia Foundation, and support him... By supporting these badly behaving editors, as you are doing at the Lindzen article, I do not believe you are helping Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock

Hi, could you please semi protect my talk page due to continued IP vandalism by Caleb Murdock. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a month to see if he gets bored. Perfectly willing to go longer/shorter if you would like. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci, Verbal chat 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Caleb deserves an indefinite block for evasion and harassment. He obviously hasn't a clue about what Wikipedia is about, and is both immature and vindictive. I've been tagging some more of his IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's futile effort to block all the IPs he's using, but this misuse of socks to evade a block is ban worthy. When will he be indef banned? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My user page

Blank it please. PCE (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason? I could also just unlock it so you can put whatever you want there (within reason, of course). I have asked NuclearWarfare to comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected the userpage in an act of good faith. Please be sure to follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing your userpage. NW (Talk) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NSF conflict update

Hi, thanks for your support at Placebo. I am working on the BullRangifer RfC/U, and as part of that I am documenting the extent of the recent disruption caused by him in connection to the misquoted Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, a policy-oriented executive report produced by the National Science Board for the US government. You may be interested to learn that the story, so far as I could trace it back, started with a very harmless and productive edit by you to Mediumship in September. [1] You quoted the previous SEI, SEI 2004, in what I consider a perfectly adequate way. Certainly if the SEI calls something pseudoscience, it's safe to say there is no scientific consensus that it exists.

The analysis is far from finished, but I think I can already guess one result: BullRangifer's belief in something gets stronger when the 'wrong' people contradict him, and that has caused the escalation. Shortly after Macromonkey removed the sentence for which you had provided a source, BullRangifer made it much stronger. Previous version: "The scientific consensus does not support the existence of spirits and the ability of people to communicate with them." (Source: SEI 2004.) After BullRangifer's edit: "The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs." (Source: SEI 2006.)

Shortly afterwards he copied this and similar formulations to other articles, and the more resistance he got, the more he made out of this poor source. At times his version was longer than the original passage on which it was supposed to be based.

I noticed that you supported the use of the source as absolutely correct in one of the RfCs. Some things that probably escaped your notice:

• There is a huge philosophical debate about adequate definitions of pseudoscience, started by Karl Popper. The standard test case is psychoanalysis. The NSF does not appear to take part in this debate.
• All serious contributors to the debate agree that mainstream religions and traditions should not be covered, and that pseudoscience shares some superficial characteristics with science.
• Several items on BullRangifer's list do not have any similarities with science (e.g. ghosts) and/or are part of a mainstream religion such as Hinduism/Buddhism (reincarnation). Thus they do not fit any of the notable definitions. (Red flag #1)
• The cited paragraph is preceded by a reasonable definition of pseudoscience, with a citation to a popular book (Red flag #2a). Several of the listed items are obviously not covered by that definition. (Red flag #2b)
• The SEI 2006 only talks about pseudoscience and lists the 10 fields in this context, citing a Gallup poll. The Gallup poll does not talk about pseudoscience at all: It only mentions paranormal. SEI 2006 makes no attempt to connect pseudoscience and paranormal. (Red flag #3)
• Nobody has managed to find any reliable sources that connect ghosts (other than ghost hunting and other special areas that have nothing to do with Hamlet or ghosts in Chinese culture etc.), haunted houses, reincarnation (other than reincarnation research), clairvoyance with pseudoscience. SEI is unique in this respect. (Red flag #4)
• SEI is produced mainly by statisticians, and it has a well defined purpose that is far removed from scholarship, philosophy of science or any other field qualified to define pseudoscience. Its main focus is to present a huge amount of statistical data for consumption by laypeople. The main author of the relevant chapter was a statistician. (Red flag # 5)

I consider this an important test case for how Wikipedia can deal (sociologically) with the temptation to quote-mine sources that can be misunderstood as saying things editors want to be true. (Another example is the crowd at List of common misconceptions that believes everything that is written in popular "misconceptions" compilations, and that uncritically believes every journalist who begins a story with "It is a common misconception that...".) For this reason, and because of the RfC/U I am preparing, I have started to collect some relevant information at User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators (practical overview over SEI 2006, zooming into the cited passage) and User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption.

I just thought I should let you know all this because I have a very good impression of you and would really like to convince you of my point of view. Or if I am wrong, you might be someone who could explain convincingly why that is so. Hans Adler 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have generally enjoyed working with you as well. I have been citing the SEIND reports since at least late 2007, and my general understanding is that they are a solid but tertiary source. I am actually not sure which of the cited studies they commission, but certainly the authors do not themselves test, for instance, the influence of magnets on health. They also do not speak with the voice of the NSF (there was an RfC or something along those lines oh, sometime in the last few years; probably on or related to the List of talkpage). This puts the source a bit below, say WHO or even APS writing on the safety of electromagnetic fields, but well above a newspaper or most books. Part of the point of such a document is that it is not saying anything particularly controversial.

I think, in essence, this dispute boils down to whether Wikipedia should use a loose popular definition of pseudoscience or a more subtle and rigorously defined definition. For something like ultra high vacuum, I would say we should always use the well-defined meaning even if a particular source plays fast and loose with the adjectives. In this instance, though, I am less sure. To paraphrase a common adage around here, WP:V is not a suicide pact - we want a consistent distilled sum of all sources.

I would caution, though, against holding too fast to the religion/pseudoscience demarkation - Ian Stevenson can be engaged in pseudoscience without having any bearing on (or coverage in) Hinduism in much the same way that hydrinos have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific status of quantum chromodynamics.

I may have some more to say on this later after reviewing your subpages. Do please let me know if you start an RfC. I am going to let BR know about this thread, as I am not sure if they watch this page these days. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yes, your page is on my watchlist, but right now it says "You have 4,192 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I regularly prune it so it doesn't approach my 27,000+ contribution history I try to keep it around 4,000. That does mean I might not notice what's going on here, and I hadn't. I watch three full days at a time, so that makes a very long list, with many items sneaking under my radar.

My main concern with all this are the blatant assumptions of bad faith that have tainted everything. I'm being treated and constantly attacked as if I was a bad person. Even the labelling of my good faith attempts to follow our policy on using verifiable sources ("verifiability, not truth") are being called "disruption". That's a gross failure to AGF. Because of this, misunderstandings have been turned into accusations against me that bear no relation to the truth when examined. Straw men have been strewn all over the place within those attacks. I've been accused of lying, gaming the system, etc.. It's been pretty awful.

Before the current situation really became ugly, I had met some light resistance at the Ghost article from User:Dbachmann, User:Ludwigs2, and User:Cosmic Latte. I could understand the last two, because they have previously been recognized as pushers/defenders of certain fringe POV, but Dbachmann's motives have been a mystery to all, and I have asked. User:Hans Adler joined in later, since he's had a beef against me for some time and there is nothing I can do to appease him. No form of apology is accepted.

The problem with their arguments were/are that they weren't/aren't based solidly in policy, but in personal OR objections of various types, which have no legitimacy as to how we edit the encyclopedia. Still, I was beginning to be uncertain if I was on the right track or not by using the NSF quote, so I did what is recommended. I started an RfC at Ghost so I could get more input from other, uninvolved editors. (This has been termed "gaming the system"!!) The RfC notification was automatically placed on three different RfC watchlists, since the subject of ghosts can be viewed from various angles. I also notified various projects and noticeboards, including the fringe and alternative medicine ones. I thus felt I'd get input from editors of many different types, including many potentially contrary views. Sure enough, I "knew" very few of them that turned up. They all supported my RfC, with only the few objectors remaining as the lonely minority. I thus received overwhelming support for my being on the right track. No one bought the vigorous objections and arguments that Ludwigs2 et al brought forth, and they definitely DID object! Since then they still haven't come with any significantly different objections. It's just been going in rings. That's also disruptive beating of a dead horse and refusal to drop the stick.

The second RfC at Talk:NPOV also produced a solid consensus that I wasn't misinterpreting the source, misusing the quote, or taking it out of context. The objection that it was a primary source (which in the context was an irrelevant argument anyway) was also roundly rebuffed. I thus have continued to act in good faith, and have reminded my opposers (the same little group) that they were fighting the consensus in two RfCs. No policy violations were ever proven, and no policy-based arguments were ever used against me. The disruption therefore appears to be primarily from Ludwigs2 and Hans Adler, with occasional support from a couple others. Dbachmann has withdrawn from the fray, likely because he realized that his edit warring, ownership (declaring that the article must be split into forks and disallowing properly sourced content), improper deletions, personal attacks and such like would draw unwanted attention. I let him know that I'd seek to have him desysopped if he continued to violate policies in such a flagrant manner. It was all very unbecoming of an admin. He stopped the attacks shortly thereafter and hasn't been seen around me since.

There is no evidence that I have acted in bad faith or violated any policies. It boils down to "verifiability, not truth". There may be policy-based arguments for changing wordings, or choosing different placement in an article, but none of these attempts I have tried (even in the lack of such arguments) has worked. It has turned into a Brangifer/NSF allergy. If they see me edit, they appear and revert me. If anyone uses the NSF quote, it gets reverted. Even when I totally transformed the edit, placed it in a totally different context, used it in a different manner than before, and even at the bottom of the page, it got deleted. I had also explained why I did it on the talk page, but to no avail. The allergic reactions continue to this day. This type of revert-without-understanding-the-context is very disruptive. Ludwigs2 was blocked for edit warring only once during this whole process. If I had edit warred it would likely have gotten much worse. I never even began to get near 3RR, choosing instead to allow things to happen as they would. Usually other editors would support my edits, but the gang kept at it.

I think a careful examination of the context of this situation, including the edits and edit summaries surrounding the diffs provided by Hans Adler, will show that the disruption has been on the part of those who refused to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs, and who have repeatedly claimed that the NSF was wrong in the 2006 version, and latest that "other [NSF] documents" contradict the 2006 source. Ludwigs2 is now refusing to provide those "documents". That's a pseudoskeptical action, per Marcello Truzzi. Well, until I see some evidence from a NSF source that they have written something that contradicts this particular source, we have nothing else to base our opinion on. All objections are personal OR objections. The wikihounding needs to stop, and the revenge RfC/U they are preparing should be seen for what it is, more blockable disruption. They lost two RfCs and this is their way of extending their war against me. It's all very distasteful.

Well, I'll be off for now. My talk page has been vandalized for the second time by a vandalism-only account, and no one has blocked them yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clear something up for me

There is some confusion over whether you actually considered your indefinite block of me to be part of the Climate Change Probation, or not. See [2]. I don't really care which way you answer, but I would like to have a clear understanding of your position so that we can put the arguing to rest. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of letting you know earlier, I waited to see just how long it would take him to change his approach; it's taken 16 hours. It's been 8 hours since I reminded him that he should discuss his issue with you, ChrisO or Tony Sidaway, and it's taken up until now for basic common sense to sink into his head. You don't need to clear this up on my part as GoRight would try to make out; I'm not concerned by it either way. If I was to add anything though, I would suggest clearing up precisely what will happen if GoRight continues along the path he was treading so far; his talk page and the recent discussions he's participated in would reveal just how many users have cautioned him about disruptive behavior since the block was lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not invoke the probation in that block. In my considered opinion, it was not necessary to do so. I am, as stated in a link tracked down by GoRight in the abovelinked discussion, ambivalent as to whether it should be logged at that page. Their disruptive approach to editing extended far beyond this one topic area, making a block the minimally invasive effective sanction. The topic ban from article editing unblock condition should probably be logged with a link to the relevant discussion, as it is relevant to the probation area. There are enough people active at the RE board and around the topic area who are aware of GoRight's several general restrictions that I am not bothered one way or the other over linking to WP:RESTRICT. I would not want to start a precedent of copying the centralized log to each probation area where a particular editor is active. Perhaps we could take the approach of linking the central restrictions page once an entry is started at the CClog - this is a fairly small clerk burden, and informs the crafting of appropriate future sanctions.

I have intentionally avoided bothering to see what GoRight has been up to, as I do not think I have effectively communicated why their approach to editing before my block was so disruptive. If similar problematic editing behaviours and approaches have continued, please take it up with the unblocking admin, and then AN/I or RfC/U if necessary. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. You are welcome at my talk page any time, though I may defer on complex issues this week. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at BullRangifer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have my user and talk page protected permanently. Do you know the other IPs he's used? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Caleb Murdock needs to be indef banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I have banned User:Ludwigs2 from my talk page. I think the last time I had to do that (worth noting) was User:Ilena. There comes a point where one can only take so much abuse and incivility. The last was over the top. Hearing the same thing again and again just isn't worth it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have certainly been underwhelmed by CM's actions lately. I expect that an AN/I or an AE under Pseudoscience would be in order either if this keeps up or they return to the editing patterns that led to the topic ban in the first place. Jane Roberts and Seth Material are quiet at the moment, but I will keep half an eye on them just in case. Do please let me know if you see anything untoward.

I am less sure what to do about the latest pseudoscience furor. AE might be an option, but I think you would be relying heavily on the 'serious respected encyclopedias do not treat these subjects credulously' card, which are countered by 'describe the cultural phenomenon' and 'showing is better than telling'. Better, probably, would be to gather up a few nice detailed reference works and rework the content at any weak points in presentation at the several articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Flash

Hi, can you please review the latest from Mister Flash. He continues to stalk and revert my edits, and continues to leave personal comments on Talk pages and in edit summaries. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dikstr

Just so you are aware, the disruptive edit warring by Dikstr of the Global Warming page which has had the user blocked twice, most recently by yourself, is continuing. I believe this warrants further administrator attention. His changes clearly go against wikipedia policy, the current scientific consensus, and the talk page consensus. StuartH (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - edit warring very nearly the same point with still no mandate from the talk page - very poor form. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Maybe some day I will read through there and figure out how to archive properly. I'm not very bright about technical computer/wiki stuff. (What an understatement! LOL) Did you create an archive page for me? If so, thanks, and please tell me how you did it. Does this mean anyone can archive my page? Best, Yopienso (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual page does not exist yet, but if you click on the link to User talk:Yopienso/Archive 1 you can create it. You can do the same for any page you want to create - just type the page name into the search box and edit away. Yes, anyone could archive your page, but it would be extremely poor form to archive another editor's talk page without permission. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Owain

Heya, I'm still having problems with this user on Newport County A.F.C., he continues to remove templates requesting sources, despite a section on the talk page, please could you take another look at the matter? Thanks. Jeni ^(talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz (talk · contribs) edit warring to remove civil comments

2/0, sorry to bother you. I don't know what to do when outnumbered by a gang. I normally just ignore it when the gang deletes my comments, and restore the comments at my talk page, but in this case, John Quiggin has made accusations against me, and Atmoz is denying me a right to respond. If there is something wrong with my response, I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me what it is. Meanwhile, it seems fairly obvious that Atmoz is edit warring. E.g. [3] [4]. Are you able to ask him please to desist? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quit being a baby. Someone already told you what was wrong with your comments. And I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know what e.g. stands for. -Atmoz (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've half a mind to send both of you to bed without dessert. (Half a mind is usually all I'm working with.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I'll believe that when I see the other half of your mind either restore my comment at the talk page, or remove the off topic comment that it was a response to. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If Boris was really angry, he'd send us to bed without dinner. I have zero patience for someone who has kept material in userspace for over a year while simultaneously using lack of said material as an argument to remove other content other content based on undue weight. -Atmoz (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, why not be less cryptic, and actually just, you know, tell me what you're talking about. What is "userspace"? Sorry, I've been here for a year but I'm still not fully across all Wiki jargon. What "material" are you referring to? You & I, Atmoz, should be allies. Instead, you follow me around making spiteful, cryptic edits, which appear to be designed just to annoy me. If I've done something to offend you, can you just tell me what it is? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw this, so thanks Atmoz. I'm very interested, now, to understand the sense in which you apparently perceive me to be hypocritical. That would be a very constructive conversation to be having I think. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see... You've added the material from my draft into the actual article... Does it bother you that you've added it, mistakes and all, and we have no one here with ability to correct it? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. That's how wikis work. Someone adds information, then someone fixes the mistakes. Ad infinitum. -Atmoz (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What posts of mine have been removed? I just looked at the lindzin talk page and am sure they are all there? mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, the principle of eventualism does not apply to BLPs. WP:BLP "...While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)...." You have added flawed, misleading material to the biography, and I am sad to say that I fully expect it will stay there until such time as Wikipedia is either reformed, or it is taken offline. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm done with you. You're clearly not bright enough to positively contribute here. I think you're being a little obtuse. Sorry to 2/0 for all the orange. -Atmoz (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, that is a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a conclusion I've reached based on about a years worth of data observing the particular editor. The fact that it isn't flattering does not make it a personal attack. -Atmoz (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, it is sad. Very sad. You are still young, I believe, and what I think is really sad is that I think you are just copying the behaviour of other editors in here. Yet, I am trying to work with you, Atmoz. You and I share very similar perspectives with respect to the BLPs. I know this after we chatted. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a BLP violation you should revert it. And keep reverting it until it's kept out, you're blocked, or the page is protected. That's what you do if you truly think it's a BLP violation. But instead, it was you who have written this material, it has been in it's current state in your userspace for a year, and you haven't even deleted that. Why are you writing BLP violating material in your userspace? I doubt very, very much that you think this material violates the principle of the BLP policy. I think biographies of scientists should be about their science. Yes. I saw you editing your draft when you started it; I thought it was good. It languished as a draft, and I had forgotten about it until you linked to it on the Lindzen talk page. I read it, and thought it was good enough for inclusion. I do not see anything in the material I added that would come close to being a violation of the BLP policy. I think you don't want it added because that will take away any undue weight claims you might have, similar to the way it took away from any undue weight claims that had been previously used at the James Hansen article prior to my expanding it. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, please, stop, and listen. Okay, I have shown the material to Dr. Lindzen, and he responded briefly, hinting to me that it had some errors. He left me some hints on what I might do next, and he seemed somewhat impressed that I had done so much research. He responded in the way, I suppose, you'd expect a professor to respond if he was someone's thesis advisor. He doesn't care about the biography himself; he doesn't care about what anonymous Wikipedians say about him. But I care about Wikipedia. He did give me some clues as to what I've done wrong. And no, I'm not going to share the private correspondence. Unfortunately, I am not a full time graduate student, and I don't have the time to pursue the writing of Dr. Lindzen's biography. The material is, unfortunately, too difficult for me. I got up to wave-CISK, and I realised the project was beyond me. Will you please see that I am sincere about getting things right. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So where is the response here Atmoz? Aside from the fact that you've added flawed material to the biography, you have simply created a new weight problem. This article now hides just about everything else that Lindzen really is known for: he's a world renowned expert on atmospheric dynamics. He wrote a textbook on this subject in 1990. After solving the paradox of the semi-diurnal tide, and then the quasi-biennial oscillations, he left this work behind. This was in 1970. He then went on to become a world renowned expert in other areas of atmospheric dynamics, the general circulation of the atmosphere, and cloud microphysics. The article is completely distorting Lindzen's career. Who is going to finish this I ask you? You can't. William can't. Kim can't. All other scientists sympathetic to Lindzen have been ostracised. How do you respond here? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Either take this to my talk page or to the Lindzen talk page. I doubt very much 2/0 wants this discussion here. -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing

OK, I looked into the matter above a little more deeply. There's an unhelpful tiff going on with both sides right and wrong to an extent. Potentially of more serious concern is the offsite canvassing; the recent EEML case is relevant here. While the venue was not hidden it is "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience" and the appeals themselves have not neutrally worded by any reasonable standard.[5][6] I would like to ask 2/0 (or other impartial admin) whether this matter should be raised at the climate change probation board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not particularly nice, but fundamentally I see very little that we can do about posts elsewhere on the internet. My very basic understanding of EEML (I read the world's most bizarre opening statements and eventually the final decision) is that they were acting highly unethically. Asking your friends and partisans to come support you here is a little bit dirty pool, but a far cry from actively colluding to circumvent the community standards. If people start showing up apparently out of the blue to make the same or substantively the same edits it would be worth bringing up WP:MEAT at the RE board, but I do not think that there is anything to do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin

Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [7], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.

I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Initially I thought Phoenix took this seriously, but now it's just indistinguishable from trolling and I am no longer sure. I suggest that we all follow WP:Deny recognition now until 2/0 gets a chance to respond. Hans Adler 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wonder what 2/0 is going to think when he shows up and sees all this crap piled up on his talk page? Zazaban (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and until he does, could all further discussion please shuffle on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of clogging up here? Zazaban (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was an interesting thread for my morning coffee. I apologize for writing in a way that could be misconstrued as you did. I am openly bi, and I intended that FAQ question to address the not uncommon issue of people bringing their filthy prejudices to that page. If I recall correctly, I was thinking mostly of AIDS denialism and WP:ADVOCACY when I wrote that FAQ, and added the rest from scanning the talkpages and trying to think of useful questions. I see that it has received some work today - might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best place to discuss improvements in wording? Reading with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I am not sure that the present version is any better. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, a big thank you to all those editors who sought calmness and clarity, and to Phoenix of9 for working to fix a perceived injustice. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here.[8] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mitsube's aggressive disruption"

Please show me the diffs that you think reflect aggressive disruption on my part. I have no idea what you were referring to here. You seem to bear me some animosity that I have done nothing to deserve. What did I ever do to offend you? I would like to make amends if I have done something amiss. Mitsube (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I have not been particularly active over there lately, but you continually pop up on my watchlist making edits that have the effect of skewing our pseudoscience (broadly construed) articles away from independent encyclopedic coverage towards a more credulous mere repetition of some highly questionable sources. This coupled with at least two WP:PETARD AN3 reports indicates to me a serious deficiency in your approach to editing here. I urge you as a fellow volunteer editor to please consider how you would expect a serious respected reference work to cover these topics - in full context or bare of commentary? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to report there seems to be some intent to pursue tendentious editing at Reincarnation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

by the way

2/0, I　promised in another thread to post a correction to the comment about the disappearance of the RWP that was "deleted by andrew c" at this thread. Unfortunately, that thread was closed for comments. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, thank you for trying. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock on the attack again

His very first edit after returning is an attack. He hasn't learned anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned, thank you. Let us see if this is a spark or a fizzle. :( - 2/0 (cont.) 02:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We can only hope. Since this involves his religion, I'm not holding my breath. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this block be recorded here? I'd think the topic ban should be made complete, IOW to include the talk page. The Jane Roberts article should also be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, 2/0, you're as bad as Verbal and Brangifer are. You are totally biased and unethical. The response that Brangifer gave to that new user sounded almost threatening. There is clearly an attempt to scare off people who don't share your biased "skeptical" point of view. The bunch of you are creating a hostile environment on Wikipedia. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@BR - that page does not seem to log blocks. I am guessing that the reasoning is that people reviewing the effects of ArbCom cases and community sanctions need a centralized log, but in the case of single users it is sufficient just to look at the block log. Besides, that was an ordinary civility block, not a violation of the page ban. I think the best approach at this point is to try to work collaboratively with CM: if he takes the hand, great, the encyclopedia wins; if he continues in the vein of these last few edits and socking, I expect he will be blocked completely rather than topic banned; if he decides to edit disruptively at other articles it is easy enough to extend the page ban, but in the meantime there is no need.

@CM - thank you for your input. There is some oblique advice for you in the preceeding paragraph. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley.2C per Marknutley Enforcement request

Per the above, I am advising you - as the admin who closed the Marknutley request - that I have reactivated the claim in respect of WMC's violation of his CC 1RR restriction. Although you made no comment upon it at the Marknutley close, you may wish to do so here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call - thank you for staying on top of this. Hopefully this can be closed quickly, as some of those reports are dragging out for quite some time. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

respect

Just in passing:

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For 2/0, a cool head in heated waters. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this barnstar (and its use of synechdoche). :P MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks :). Better, you reminded me to check my fire extinguisher - next time I do not die in a fire I will have you to thank. Now, on to baking up the last of last year's fresh frozen blueberries while simultaneously not setting the kitchen on fire. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reply

I responded to your message. Please reply. [9] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Here might be an idea to lock it out for a few days mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid that article, but a quick glance suggests that Macai has returned to precisely the same sort of non-constructive behavior that led to his one-month topic ban. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it is not because of the recent expiration of the semi-protection. Meh. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mark Nutley

I want to notify you of this comment i left on Mark's talk[10]. I find that the talk-space edits may have come from a confusion by Mark on what exactly the conditions were for his conditional unblock - but i see that he has also edited article-space (more than once). I'm not seeking any sanctions - but just a general notification, that i'm going to protest if he ever asks for a conditional unblock again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i have responded on my talk page, but please note, the article i edited was one i had just put into main space, i noticed i had missed out a letter on my copy/paste and then fixed it. Really a few seconds in this here, come on now. mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And how could you think that it was OK to create an article, when you are only allowed to edit in your user-space? And as i noted on your talk - this edit to Cao Yong is certainly not related in any way or form to your user-talk space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again i have responded on my talk page, shall we just keep it there instead of cross posting like this? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, take it to the enforcement page for clarification. As calmly as possible, please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better chuck this one in as well then [11] the guy posted that i had misspelt his name so i fixed it :-( mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Marknutley#This is not OK...., thank you everyone for remaining calm and polite. Incidentally, while as my userpage suggests I would feel silly if I blocked someone for making an unquestionably good and trivial edit, I would really appreciate not being put in that situation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some i dotting and t crossing requested

Per the discussion here, you and I neglected to log some of our actions. I have done so for me, but wish to give you the opportunity to reach closure in this matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have on occasion made posts intended more as friendly advice rather than formal warnings and have intentionally not logged those, but those look like they should have been logged. And so they were, I think - [12], [13]. I think there is some confusion because you closed and acted on that request, but I archived it a few days later. More over there. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about NPA and BATTLEGROUND?

Given your concerns, these might be of interest. This, from a just-blocked editor, might be best ignored. [14] This one [15] doesn't have that excuse, and it's part of a recent pattern on his part. Maybe a discussion with him would do some good. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(e_x + e_y + e_z). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar.