User talk:ජපස

(Yet another) WQA report

Someone filed a WQA report, which can be found WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist. Surprised no one has mentioned it to you yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And now WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist. I'm not for sure if the user is canvassing around or if he wasn't satisfied with the original answers from some editors. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 96 hours

Blocked for 96 hours for breaking your arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. You only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started[1], so your post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. You are not allowed to be incivil and then recant - the arbcom case requires that you do not be incivil in the first place! John Vandenberg (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this, this morning. Sorry to hear about you being blocked again. As you see from my comments on the Bleep talk page, I think it is hardly worth while staying here. It was interesting learning about the film, but this is so obviously a losing battle. I am going to make the crisps with my son, now, and try and put this short episode behind me. With very best wishes. The Rationalist (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment to me in email, I can comment whereever I want as I have not taken any admin action in this recent matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist. There seems to be some misunderstanding that the blocking admin had with regards to the timeline. Please unblock me so that a proper review can be made of the situatiaon at AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your link does not convince me that the blocking admin acted in error. This was an incivil comment, regardless of whether or not you later retracted it, and under what circumstances. — Sandstein (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblocked

Per my comment here, I've unblocked you. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seicer and privacy concerns

You have a very legitimate reason for opposing the above candidate, and I respect your opinion, but offering to send private emails to other members on request is quite a serious privacy issue. When users email you using the interface, they do so on the understanding that what they say is in private, and that includes there email staying only with you. Given that you are a respected user, people will take what you say as the truth (i.e. they will rocognise that there were civility problems in the email) but the exact email should stay with you. Whilst I respect that you did this in good faith as a compromise for posting it on wiki, even forwarding it on is a big no no. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure genius this one... Shot info (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on AN

Hello, ජපස. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:ScienceApologist.130.101.20.159 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being poked again

Hi SA, you're being poked again at AE (link). Just thought someone ought to let you know (you know, unlike the last couple of times). R. Baley (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#User:ScienceApologist. seicer | talk | contribs 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks

Notifying you of WP:AE#ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

reported —Whig (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I dont know how you deal with the nonsense psudoscience pages all the time. I try, but I just cant force myself to do it. For doing what needs to be done, I offer you this tireless contributor barnstar. RogueNinjatalk 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I am asking you again to please strike through your remarks. I do not want to ask someone else to tell you, as you have requested I do, as my intention is not to have you blocked but to ask you to be civil. —Whig (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Glug, glug...mmm hint of almond... Shot info (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

reported to AN/AE. —Whig (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And shot down at AE. Uh-ho, maybe the tactics that have been so successful for the last few months are seen to be what they are? Time for a new game plan... Shot info (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed another complaint

See [2] Tom Butler (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about this, it's being handled on the board pretty effectively. Looks like Tom is doing a bit of shopping. Let's hope he spends wisely. Baegis (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Progress?

Hey SA, I just noticed this. If I might be bold, it's beginning to look like your recent efforts toward "civility" are beginning to pay tangible rewards -- people are backing you up who might not have a couple of months ago. Even Rlevse thought the complaints were groundless. Nice work. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative spirit in the Quackwatch article

It seems that there is a clear community consensus for removing the contested pseudotemplate [3] with support from Fyslee [4] and others. To foster a more collaborative spirit it would be nice if you could remove the template yourself to set an example of collaborative and good faith behavior. MaxPont (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV DUE

Dear ScienceApologist,

I thank you for your contributions concerning my proposals to get more clarity on the DUE WEIGHT issue. I've drafted new proposals, and would welcome any improvement or critique you may have! Thx,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Expert Withdrawal in Signpost?

FYI, User talk:Zvika#Expert Withdrawal Jay*Jay (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade and NPOV/N

I just want to make sure that you are aware of the conversation here as it pertains to our disagreement at Deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

and incidentally I posted something too long there (seeking agreement that the term "homeopathy" itself is troublesome)Pete St.John (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI re Ronz

SA, I'd invite you to consider the distinction between good ally and good rhetoric, but anyway you may be concerned with my WQA becoming this AN/I regarding Ronz. With or without a side-order of insinuations Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

there does indeed exist pseudoscience PoV pushing

SA, could you look at the article Pierre Duhem? It's linked from the Main-Page "On this day" item condemnations, is about a scientist who wrote on the history and philosophy of science (I'd never heard of him myself), and the article just sucks like a Hoover. I wrote something on the Talk page but it's just too too. I would say that this article deserves to have the Official Wiki Pseudoscience-PoV-Push-backer Pitbull sicked on it. Pete St.John (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Worked a bit on one of the sections. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; ok I'll be hysterical and you be calm :-) Pete St.John (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

Since you've reverted it twice without anything on the talk, I'm requesting the page be re-protected. I'd have posted at AN/I on this one, but AN/I is IP protected right now. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind AN/I, I've sent this to arbitration enforcement. The report is here. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An interview proposal

Hi, I (and others) would be interested in your thoughts on the recent discussion on my talk page. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

"Consider this a final warning." From someone claled Rlevse. Who is this guy? Why is it a final warning, given there have been no earlier warnings. (I did lose my cool a bit earlier on, but patience is being severely tested with this Bleep article). The Rationalist (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

dunno, but he is an admin with more barnstars than NGC 414 so be polite. Pete St.John (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar collections are just ways of promoting circle-jerk "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" behavior on Wikipedia. I used to keep a record of such things, but got rid of it after I saw how frightfully simple-minded the whole process is. I don't mind it if people want to give me barnstars, but the community has turned the whole thing into meaningless eye-candy and nothing more. If you want, Pete, I'll give you a couple hundred barnstars right now and you can beat this administrator at his own game. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did lose my cool, and I will take a break this week. I have incredibly short patience with this kind of thing. And I've upset Woonpton (?) with my rudeness. I'll be back in a better mood. The Rationalist (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TR, yeah, take a walk, build a snow-man. This gets to all of us. SA, the mass of barnstars is an indicator (not a proof) of social connectivity. It doesn't mean that the admin is wise and good, it means he has lots of friends, so he should be approached with common sense, and not rancor, if possible. TR really was losing his cool and getting blocked is less fun than just takikng a break voluntarily. As you and I both know :-(. As for your giving me a barnstar, actually I would like to earn back the one you cost me, you child-of-an-undocumented-consummation, but the real victory will be when the fighting quells on any contentious page, anywhere, if that's possible. We are all trying to make that happen. At least once, for an existence proof. Pete St.John (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cost you a barnstar? Wow, I've been accused of doing a lot of things, but that's a new one. :)ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

it's from back when we first "met". Levine offered a barnstar over Quackwatch, Arthur Rubin seconded, but the peace at QW did not last so I never moved it to my talk page. Where I have helped the peace to last, has been at less conspicuous, more technical pages where the contention is less persistent. Pete St.John (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have many spare ones, they give me momentary pleasure but I no longer keep them for posterity because posterity doesn't actually want them. There is one I valued above all others: Raul's brick o'common sense for a succinct explanation of Wikipedia's power structure to someone who was having trouble grasping the obvious. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Retired?

Based on your edit history, you don't seem to be retired? If not, you should take that off your user page. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Re" is crossed out. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I missed the joke, I thought it was just some sort of graphical glitch. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Is just a word used on Wikipedia to mean 'code of conduct'. I don't much care for applications of civility myself, but JzG is continually being an obnoxious asshole, and to be honest - he's getting on my nerves. My support of the RfC is nothing to do with civility and everything to do with his abuse of admin tools and his treatment of Wikipedia as a warground. As for the issue of civility being subjective, well, neither I nor any of the people I'm friends with would tolerate his attitude and behaviour for longer than, say, five minutes tops before someone told him where to get off. Love you too, Naerii · plz create stuff 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation here. You are obviously welcome to your opinions, but maybe you shouldn't be saying that about your friends, as many editors here believe that Guy reserves obnoxious behavior for those whose editing equates, at best, to trolling for him. Avb 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing that those who are all over JzG are the first to point the "Mummy he's being uncivil" finger. Yet the don't find the irony when one of their own engages in so very JzG like conduct (using their theory). I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Of course there is a better word for it .... Shot info (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:KETTLE is a useful principle, but it has its limits. The whistle must be blown at some point if things are to improve. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way SA, sorry for turning your talk page into a soapbox.... — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, after reading the start and scrolling through the rest of the "discussion" on the RfC page (that things longer than any article I've ever seen I think!), I decided to just come here and leave you a note.

I agree with you entirely that many on Wikipedia take the "Civility" standard to far, far extremes. At the same time, they will throw around insults and troll-isms and accusations, then claim violation of civility for calling them out on it.

I am one to believe that we do need to be civil, but not crybaby-ish about it. If I tell you (meaning someone) that your edit was terrible but I'll give you the AGF that it was just poor writing, that's not uncivil. If I start name-calling and throwing around accusations of various improprieties or whatnot, that is uncivil.

As for JzG, I have seen him break out the nepalm with others, and I think that is beyond uncivil. The name-calling is not appropriate. There's a ton more stuff listed on that page than I care to look into, also! But the threshhold that some people have for banter, bluntness, honesty, and even a little bit of pick-and-poke fencing is just dramatically low.

Having been on the receiving side of personal attacks, insults, incivility, accusations, trolling, and much more, I don't care about much of it, because I have a high threshhold for it... a high tolerance. Bantering, even a little sub-trolling among a couple extablished users... never really hurt anyone.

TMOTSI: You're absolutely right about the "incivility" being subjective and called up far too often for puny little stuff. And your comments on the RfC to that effect were perfect, not incivil, as some have claimed.

Take care, • VigilancePrime • • • 05:42 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

I think you got the gist of what I was going for with civility. That you call civility a "standard" and not a "policy" is telling. I think civility should be a guideline, not a policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview

Hi! You will find the questions for your interview here. Thanks for agreeing to do this. --Zvika (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Supermegaultraevil

You evil man! Trying to suppress the great truth of the Urantia revelation![5] ;o) I hope you're doing well. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mpemba effect

SA, I appreciate your effort in supplying some references. However, these references primarily are concerned with the supercooling and do not mention any 'heat transfer problem'. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me how they are related to your text? The Tutor (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that supercooling is not a super form of cooling; it involves the lifetime of a metastable phase. The Tutor (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that you state 'We should not leave poor content on Wikipedia for any length of time' and yet you leave the paragraph with unsupporting citations. You really should read citations before you add them. The Tutor (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking articles

(Cross posted to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard)

Instead of straying into ad hominems in side discussions at the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard about supposed "fans" that are "none-to-happy", how about actually sharing the NPOV issues you believe you're seeing so that articles can be improved, instead of blanking WP:V'd content at your whim the way you have been?

The issue for my part is that applying your personal interpretation of a wikipedia essay of all things as a reason for summary deletion of articles is contrary to wikipedia policy of WP:DELETE: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page". And: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input". Again, as I've mentioned in my edit summaries for the Thought Adjuster and other articles I've restored that you've wished to blank out without discussion for unelaborated POV concerns, air and address those concerns on the talk pages and work with editors on a WP:GOODFAITH basis. I will be happy to do so with you. If you believe the material is somehow against WP policy and needs to be reviewed in terms of possible deletion, that will need to be done using the full and typical deletion process. Blanking pages is for vandals. Wazronk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I am happy to discuss and work with you on the talk pages about any ideas for improvements you might have. Or if you want to mainly focus on The Urantia Book talk page as a central discussion place for various of these related topics, that's fine by me also. Meanwhile, I have to point out to you again that it is entirely against wikipedia policy to go in and blank pages the way you have been doing. I'm restoring these articles once more. I have no illusions about them being grandiose articles of WP:PERFECT prose or necessarily even being surviveable at the end of collaborative discussions to be had and potential AfDs that invite further community commentary. So be it, the content will be all the better for it. But set aside the blanking, that is not the way to do things. Let's get into some discussions and see what will come of collaborations first and a review of the WP:V and WP:RS sources. All the best. Wazronk (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview again

Hi! To avoid any chance of unfairness in the interview, it has been suggested that you email your responses to me rather than posting them on the interview page. That way, there will be no issue of someone posting his answer first, and giving the other a chance to respond in his interview. Whether you choose to do this or to just post your responses on the interview page, I remind you to please complete the interview by Tuesday. Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes in Plasma cosmology

Howdy! Don't know if you are still watching or even interested, but Really2012back is proposing to delete the section on Comparison to mainstream cosmology. I am suggesting that it would be better to delete the whole article than just that section - an idea I believe I got from you. Both of us recognize the difficulting in sourcing the section, but can't figure out how to fix it. Drop by if you have time between People and Larry King. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch and Aura-Soma

Do you have a reference for the last part you added here? Neither of these actually say anything of the sort. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

On March 16 you made a correction on Wazronk for the Cosmology (Urantia Book) redirect. You have mistakenly reverted a proper redirect, and improperly directed it back to the main article. This is, no doubt, because you are unfamiliar with the Urantia Book. Wazronk made a redirect that was consistent with Wikipedia Policy. You claim that the article redirected was a pov fork. That is not so. You are improperly applying pov policy to the article you reverted. Please help to correct this, or I will have to go to the delete review committee. Thanks. --Richiar (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some kudos instead of a silly barnstar

Most people seem to be unable to change their interactions with others in any way. Obviously you are one of the few exceptions. If you continue like this I will nominate you for adminship, in the hope that the stress that comes with the tools will bring you in line with my initial impression of you. But I am not even sure that would help. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Obstruction?

Hi, SA. I enjoyed our talk Sunday at the Symposium. I just became aware that writer Nicholson Baker, who edits WP under the username User:Wageless (Source), is in the habit of saving articles from deletion by turning those articles into usernames, and cutting and pasting the article's content into a userspace. I was actually editing User:CaptainObvious for a while, getting rid of very unreliable sources, or sources not supporting the material claimed, before I realized it was a User page. I reverted my edits and left an apology in that Edit Summary, and tracing my way back to remember how I found it, I came across this section on Wageless' Talk Page, in which he mentions doing this more than once. Is this permissable? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks for your help. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article blanking

Hello, ජපස. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wazronk (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pricing affecting placebo effect

Hey, do you happen to have a source handy for the assertion you made on the JzG RfC that higher drug pricing intensifies the placebo effect? I stumbled upon your comment, and it turns out I have an ongoing argument with my wife over whether brand name medicines are somehow better than the generic equivalent (I am sure they are the same, while she swears that she has experienced increased efficacy with name brand drugs even when the active ingredients list and dosages are identical -- if your assertion is true, that would explain it!)

If you don't have the source handy, no sweat. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, obviously, but it would help me win an argument!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tlogmer/Sleaze rock

Could you direct me to the link of the XFD discussion? Thanks. Rudget. 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Rudget. 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop blanking pages without consensus

Edit-warring is not the way to improve problematic articles - please use discussion, merge proposals, and if all else fails deletion nominations in order to generate consensus on radical changes to articles. You have been warned, and if you continue edit-warring on the Urantia-related articles, you may face community sanction. Regards, скоморохъ 17:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I have to take your talk page off my watchlist, that's another 4 pages added. Jefffire (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

misconception

Thanks, (I think).] <grin>> At any rate, if you think they're better gone, they are probably better gone. I prefer to grant users greater leeway, but that's just me. Cheers, and happy editing! Dlohcierekim 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Dlohcierekim 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I would probably assume it was userfied in hopes of improvement and leave it alone for a while. If, after no improvement, I might have MFD'd. The exception, of course being the unpleasant encounter I had with someone over a BLP problem with an otherwise non notable subject. Of, course, he had to try to convince me I was wrong by making the same points on my talk page that he made in the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote as lead in WTB

Doesn't look like there's much support for using the quote as a part of the lead. Could you weigh in and say that the proposed change is OK? You kind of said that, but weren't explicit. I feel like I'm trying to move a beach one grain of sand at a time, but I think that's the only way this article is going to move at all.Kww (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The language I posted in the protected edit request is a precise cut-and-paste of the language everyone agreed to. Where is this discrepancy coming from?Kww (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Skype?

I am going to try to make the Skypecast tomorrow: [6]and discuss pseudoscience, if possible. I have a lot of experience on Skype and I suggested this back in August, but they are finally trying it now...--Filll (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomalous phenomena

I don't think we want to get into POV-pushing finger pointing as a similar argument could be made for someone removing a number of pages without trying to discuss things first. How about we take this to the talk page first and then come to consensus about the best way forward? (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Dragging my feet? I hate to mention it but you can't expect instant responses to anything here. I will be sure to get back to you on this later this evening but I do happen to have other things that require my time and attention. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

"If you can't handle the speed, buster, then get out of the way!" Really? Because someone hasn't replied to your post within minutes it somehow disqualifies me from having any input? I am genuinely surprised and concerned about this, which a long with your removal of my talk page post [7] seems to be an attempt to railroad any attempts at discusses this situation and resolving it. I'd ask that you actually allow people the chance to actually discuss this situation - at their own pace. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

An invitation to meatpuppetry? Please assume good faith in both myself and others. I am unsure how having other things to do is somehow seen as dragging my feet. (Emperor (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid people have other things to do and have to work Wikipedia into their free time so discussions can take a while and you can't expect an instant response - reading some kind of motivation into this is certainly assuming good faith. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Work on Urantia Book article

I got your note, and appreciate your commitment to having quality standards for Wikipedia. I can see there are problems with the perception of the Urantia Book, and that those perceptions are significant in that they are widespread, although maybe not always accurate. When you say the article needs more work before content forking is done, I'm not sure quite what you mean. Could you elaborate that idea a little for me? Thanks. --Richiar (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiSloth

Just wanted to drop you a note and say Thanks for the WikiSloth link. How true that is! Thanks again. Shoessss |  Chat  01:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the zombies!

They will eat you alive! Guy (Help!) 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent events - it should be "CIVILity...you cannot escape" :-) Shot info (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Integrated interview

Hi! I have placed a semi-final draft of the integrated interview here. I made several editorial changes to the interviews to improve the flow of the text and make it more appropriate for community-wide publication. Specifically, I removed several references (by both interviewees) to specific incidents where, in my opinion, the interviewee was being impolite, or just overly specific; I removed one question (on RS) which I think did not result in interesting responses; and I have made several other stylistic adjustments, including changes to the text of the interview questions. I would appreciate it if you could carefully read through the final interview and make sure that I did not misrepresent your opinions. For your convenience, here is a diff with the main changes I made. Please get back to me by Sunday, 09:00 UTC at the latest, so that I can make the deadline of the next Signpost issue. Thanks again for your cooperation, --Zvika (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairness of tone

I think I understand why you removed the link to NPOV: Fairness of tone from the homeopathy talk page, and I agree with that move because that section is very easy to misunderstand in this context. On the other hand I think that the article has a bit of the related problem that is described in number 44 on Moreschi's list here. E.g. the second sentence in the lede uses the verb "contend", and later there seems to be a general tendency to say more or less the same negative things about homeopathy several times in a row. These things convey the subliminal message that the author is against homeopathy, but that because nobody believes his arguments he resorts to shouting. It's not enough to be objective, we also need to sound objective. (I once had the same problem when the question was when and how to have my baby daughter inoculated. I went to the website of the relevant German institution, the Robert-Koch-Institut, thinking that they would have the most reliable information. In the end I essentially followed their advice, but only because of the information I found elsewhere on the web. It took an enormous mental effort to just discard the Robert-Koch-Institut's self-undermining pro-inoculation propaganda instead of weighing it as a strong argument against inoculation.)

Another problem is that the article is unlikely to stabilise and stop polarising as long as its language doesn't sound neutral. I just thought I should let you know, as I have been thinking about the problem for the last few days. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My view of the Urantia Book article

I thought it might be a good idea for me to explain myself on the Urantia Book article. I for the most part agree with most of what's being said by the admins on this deletion or redirect issue. I think the critisims are valid. I have been on Wikipedia just a little over a year. I do have a fair familiarity with the content of the book, however, my first reaction when I saw the article was that it was out of control, and I believe it has continued to be. I have tried to modify it in a normal direction, but have not had any success. There is a lot of resistance to change.

The disagreement I have with the point of view and content forking, is a technical one. I detect that there is a liberal and conservative way of looking at the summarization issue. For an article to generate so much contention, its a clear sign that there's a problem, and I would conceed that the view I held on the summarization issue isn't working for this article, and the best way to address it is to take the more conservative view (for this article).

I know that you and Wazronk clash: I have respect for Wazronks knowledge of the Urantia Book. He/she may appear to be a religious Blueboy96 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)fanatic, but my experience of Wazronk is that he/she has tried to uphold Wikipedia policies.

A major problem I have with the article is that there is way to much obsession with details that are irrelevant to producing a standard encyclopedia article. The editors working on the article over that last year have been trying to produce a neutral point of view, and trying to just describe whats in the book. Apparently that wasn't the case before I joined Wikipedia.

My position is and has been that the article needs to be greatly simplified, while much of the material is accurate to book content, is too detailed, and does end up sounding like a promotion of the book. My view of what the article should more look like is here.(I have rewritten the first four sections only). --Richiar (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

You have made an edit to Eric Lerner that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Disruption. John254 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have full-protected the Eric Lerner article for one week or until you guys can settle this on the article's talk page. Blueboy96 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• SA, you know better than that. WP:BLP means absolute insistence on WP:RS. You can source it to the reliable sources that the larouche watch site used, if it used any. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomalous phenomena

Since you apparently didn't see my rationale, it was posted here on the 21st. I also mentioned that I put it on the talk page here and here on the 21st. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I also made [8] this comment today. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic Wiki

SA, were you aware of this? I just discovered it right now! Awesome! Nightscream (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I though it was not bad. E.g. The EVP article has quite a good intro! Best - The Rationalist (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What the bleep

Hi SA. I'm trying hard to improve my life by not getting involved with that article. But ... I don't quite see why you object to 'quantum mechanical means'. The film is quite explicit that quantum mechanics explains the power of our mind to affect the physical world. I can find you plenty of quote to support that. And it helps your cause if anything to include it (because it is so obviously absurd). Best. The Rationalist (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was just coming here to make that point and The Rationalist has been already made it, thanks. As I said on Bleep talk, I think the clause should stay. It serves everyone's purpose, because it describes the movie on its own terms, and at the same time shows how ridiculous those terms are without going on about it.Woonpton (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, no, quantum mechanics does not "explain the power of our mind to affect the physical world" on account of that premise being complete twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point, Guy. Of course the premise of the film is complete twaddle, but you can't write an article about a film without saying what the film says, and that's what it says. There's plenty of material, both in the lead and in the body of the article, pointing out that the premise of the film is nonsense; it doesn't have to be hammered home in every single sentence. To me it makes the point better to lay out the premise in the first sentence, in all its naked absurdity, than to censor the absurdity out of it simply because the absurdity is absurd. Why not let the absurdity speak for itself? Woonpton (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes quite. The fundamental premiss of the film (that thought can directly influence reality) has no support from science, and is indeed absurd. The intro should say this. Guy, ironically it is the New Age-inclined editors who would support you here. They have consistently opposed putting this sort of gentle ridicule in the intro. You now seed to agree with them. Can we all be on the same side, please? The Rationalist (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a New Age editor is, but I personally would be against adding any kind of "gentle ridicule" into the lead because doing so is a violation of POV. As editors we can't influence the reader in that way. They'll figure it out for themselves, whatever the "it" may be, if we just give them cited information.(olive (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

The film never explicitly says that it is by quantum mechanical means that the "power of intention" stuff happens. It is only implied that there may be a connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That article badly needs {{uninformed wingnut drivel}}. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film never explicitly says that... that is why our version of the introduction says suggests rather than says. The Rationalist (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tesla?

In your user page, there's a reference to "Tesla enthusiast" to be pseudoscience. Isn't it the Nikola Tesla who invented alternating currents or another Tesla? Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a user who has been promoting fringe theories connected with Tesla. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was an amazing scientist and inventor. A unit measuring the magnetic field is named after him. Alternating current is the bees-knees. But he also had a lot of kooky ideas as well. Unfortunately, there are a number of crazed-enthusiasts who think that Tesla's zanier ideas are being "suppressed" by the "mainstream establishment". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a biography or two about him. Pretty amazing. Pretty crazy too. Did you know that he cured Mark Twain's constipation by passing some sort of electric current through him? --Filll (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an ANI report

It's because I have no idea what it takes to get a simple concept across to you: if the instructions for using a macro say it's for noncontroversial changes or changes that have consensus, that's the only time it can be used. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your proposed change. You know that I usually do agree with it. It's just a matter of playing by the rules, and I don't understand why you won't.Kww (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

People are discussing you

Since no one else informed you, you are being discussed here. It may be in your best interest to comment. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours

This is a completely unacceptable personal attack, and violates the terms of your arbitration editing restriction. This, which was reported at WP:AE is also very poorly worded. You have been blocked for 72 hours for making personal attacks and being incivil. GRBerry 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)