User talk:ජපස

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

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

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

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

Re: Belladonna

I was just getting rid of the unsourced stuff in that first edit. I've changed it just now to "traditional treatment", because that much is a fact, and without uncontroversial terms such as foobaropathy. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology

Hi SA, Although you have recieved several blocks, I am impressed by your science-related/dominated edits. So, I was wondering if your interests project as far as palaeontology? If so, you would be most welcome to join the project. Best, Mark t young (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

SA, your talkpage is currently at 130K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. If you'd like, I could set up an archivebot for you? Then it would automatically archive any threads that had been inactive for a certain amount of time (30 days?) and you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. --Elonka 21:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to have an archivebot set-up, but I've found that I prefer to simply delete my talkpage stuff since there is often things I don't want easily searchable being said about me. I'll do a cleanup now. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nash Equilibrium

SA, since you are one of our best WP:NOR defenders, I was hoping you might have a look at Nash equilibrium. Do you think original research is being used there? I'm troubled by the lack of cited sources in such a lengthy and technical article. Apparently they were told last year to do something about it, but nothing has been done. I know that fighting the paranormal fans and the homeopaths is a full-time ordeal, but we can not allow our more technical articles fall prey to obscurity opportunists. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in particular do you think original research is occurring? Nash Equilibrium is a subject I've seen discussed in many different places. E.g. [1], [2]. One issue might be someone hawking some investment scheme that pretended to use the concept but really didn't. I don't see that showing up in the article, though.

A problem you might be facing is that for very famous subjects like the Nash Equilbrium there are literally so many sources to choose from, choosing one or even a dozen can be a nightmare for people who are experts in the subject. They'd prefer just to amalgamate them all up into one. When you see really good review articles written for professionals (or even amateurs), it is rare that there are in-line citations. This is a known problem for the whole WP:CITE game. A while back, we had an awful row at WP:GA over this very issue. In basic science and math articles such as Nash Equilibrium it is very difficult to get a citation down for uncontroversial facts when statements are actually amalgamated from a variety of sources to make things more clear for the reader. In the case of Nash Equilbrium, it might be a good idea to just get one good standard game theory text and then reference all the paragraphs to that. This was the technique I employed at force. Do you know how hard it is to reference F=ma?

The problem with WP:NOR is that it really should be used only to put the kibosh on truly original research subjects. That is to say, subjects that are not yet accepted by a wide community consensus (in academia, for example). Some people like to apply WP:NOR in mathematics articles to make arguments that editors should avoid cleaner proofs. This is clearly not what NOR is supposed to be used for.

Ultimately, what this must come down to is an issue of editorial debates over wording versus referencing. I see the issue at Nash Equilbrium right now to be that the article writers are interested in how best to write the article, but the article readers want to have references; that is, someone who knows nothing about game theory will not be very successful in verifying the article from the two references given. Nevertheless, much of what is written in the article is very good: there just needs to be some incentive for someone to list some sources.

The citation template is ugly, but it gets the job done. At LEAST a bibliography should be added.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and the timely reply. I never thought about it from the expert's perspective, so I am grateful that you have given me this valuable insight. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang-Biogenesis "proof"

(Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I copied & pasted from my talk page) I'm not sure what you're talking about, whether it is creation science, or some other variant, but there certainly is no proof using biogenesis that the Big Bang is wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that biogenesis is disproof once and for all of the Big Bang. Biogenesis, as the proof of how life cannot spontaneously generate from non-living material (proved by Louis Pasteur in I've forgotten what year) would mean that at the very beginning there must have been something living when the BB theory suggests that in the first few minutes all there was were hydrogen and helium atoms. Actually, I've changed my mind, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Big Bang never happened, but if it didn't then it's proof that there is indeed a God. It is either proof for one or the other, I just chose to say it's disproof of the BB because of the two scenarios that's the one that's probably more likely to be accepted by the wider scientific community. Some Atheists may have trouble accepting that there is a God and will believe anything as an alternative.

Therefore, the Big Bang may actually have happened. But if it DID, there must be a God. See the logic? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welsh-girl-Lowri (talk • contribs)

Your logic is a bit shaky. But what is more important, you have been lied to about "biogenesis". What Pasteur dispelled was the particular notion of "spontaneous generation", i.e. the idea that life would, in a short time frame, form e.g. in rotten meat. Some people who are interested in misrepresenting science misuse the imprecise nature of human language and claim that Pasteur proved that life can never be created from non-living material, even given billions of years, one planet worth of reagents, and an effectively inexhaustible energy source. This is of course wrong - what Pasteur showed is that sterile chicken broth would stay clear over a time of hours unless microorganisms were introduced ("spontaneous generation" predicted that those would form spontaneously in the broth). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but you cannot include your idea on Wikipedia pages because you are not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, sorry about that, that is my research (if a bit on the vague/inaccurate/unscienific side) but I have reason to believe that someone hacked my account for a joke and started distributing what they believed to be my research in ways I wouldn't have chosen. I mean, if you'd done a load of research would you first publish it to a science journal or leak it to Wikipedia? (It's exactly the kind of cruel prank someone would play on me) so I'll try to find these things that were written from my account and delete them. Those morons have gone too far this time. Lowri (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cool it

Starting an edit war on ani would be a really bad idea. Cardamon (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Spacetime

Could you have a look at Spacetime for me? What're your thoughts on that article? Vassyana (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a heavy read for first-timers, but it's pretty good. Do you have specific concerns? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spacetime#Basic concepts seems kind of half-hearted and its subsections seem a little confusing. The subsections of Spacetime#Mathematics of space-times don't seem to explain things very well or completely. It was just an article I came across randomly browsing around. It seemed more or less accurate from my very amateur view, but the two sections mentioned above seemed kind of off and murky. It could just be my lay perspective, but we should write for a general educated audience (though obviously some technical and mathematical details are unavoidably well, technical). I thought you would be a good person to ask to look over it. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it soon. We can definitely do a better job than what currently is passing for an article there. The big issue is that the metric is completely missing and that probably leaves people feeling confused. Also not discussed are spacetime diagrams. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you come across a religion or philosophy article that needs some love and/or clarification, let me know and I'll return the favor. Vassyana (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience RfC still not appearing over on CF page

Unfortunately, the 'Should the article be placed in the category of "pseudoscience"' question for Cold Fusion is still not showing up on the Template:RFCsci_list. It looks like the bot stops at one RfC per talk page. I don't know what the 'right' way to get the question to appear on the list is in this case- would manually inserting it mess up the bot automation? Is the one-RfC-per-page bot limit intentional, indicating that this should wait until the first RfC closes? It might be a good idea for you to unstrikethrough your warning until this question appears on the official RfC list. --Noren (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The bot limit is intentional, but I was WP:BOLD and listed the second RfC anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the clarification and effort. I had listed it earlier (and removed your comment since it was related to that), but it didn't show up as I had expected. Looks like you got to it before I :) seicer | talk | contribs 16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

SA, I am really concerned by this kind of action.[3] The article had been protected for a week, then when protection expired, within hours you went in and reverted to your own last version from several days ago, and launched another set of revert wars which caused protection to be replaced within a day. Per your request, I do not want to just impose another ban, but would you be willing to submit to a voluntary 30-day 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article? Meaning no reverts except for obvious vandalism? --Elonka 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SA is one of SIX editors who reverted the article. I see you scolded SA but I don't see any comments to any of the others, including one who reverted it twice. Why the selective treatment? --Minderbinder (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Block

ScienceApologist, because of your recent actions, I have blocked your account access for 12 hours. This was for actions such as edit-warring with Martinphi, using "undo" to remove an edit of his from March as "irrelevant"[4], calling something a "crap point" in a discussion,[5] and deleting a comment from ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs), with a bad faith edit summary of editor should not be editing Wikipedia at all. You are under strict ArbCom editing restrictions from multiple cases. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted which says, "Should [ScienceApologist] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, [he] may be blocked." It is my opinion, that your recent comments violated your restrictions, so I am temporarily blocking your account access. I would also point out that this is your fourth block this month.[6] Your other blocks were for 24 hours, 48 hours, 3 hours, and 24 hours, so I probably could have blocked you for considerably longer, but I am choosing a short 12 hour block which I hope will communicate that your behavior must change. After this block expires, I want you to put considerably more effort into staying extremely civil, and to treat all editors, even your longtime opponents, with civility. And don't worry, I will also be demanding the same of them. But this pattern of yours where you are blocked, then return to the same disruptive activity, are then blocked again, return to the same activity, and so forth, must stop. If you have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. I am uncomfortable with you blocking this editor and request that you not undertake any further administrative actions with respect to them. I think you are insufficiently objective to use tools in this instance. Please post your block to WP:ANI for review by uninvolved administrators. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this block, which seems to serve a punitive purpose. I do not see what preventative purpose is served by this block that would not be better served by way of a clear explanation of the problem. The cool down length of the block is also concerning, as such blocks are strongly discouraged with good reason and Elonka has been around quite long enough to know why. To be honest, so many varied and inconsistent applications of the civility policy have been put forward to this user that it seems grossly inappropriate to block in all but the clearest cases without a previous warning and explanation. I've not been shy in the past about blocking, warning and/or sanctioning ScienceApologist, so I'm not here to make excuses for him. I'm simply concerned about what appears, to me, to be a punitive block that only serves to raise temperatures higher. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. SA is under editing restrictions, Elonka explained the block in detail, it's a relatively short block, and Vassyana isn't an uninvolved opinion. However, posting to ANI for further admin review is probably not a bad idea, per Jehochman. Tan | 39 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is not uninvolved either. As for ANI, as Jehochman well knows, there was just another lengthy ANI thread about a brief one-week ban that I placed on ScienceApologist, where the ban was endorsed by multiple uninvolved admins.[7] I would be reluctant to start another ANI thread for every single action that's taken on ScienceApologist, especially because he goes in and out of these blocks and bans so rapidly (this is his fourth block this month). Of course, if someone else wants to start an ANI thread, that is their right, but I truly don't feel that it is necessary. Especially since such a thread would probably take days to resolve, and this is just a short 12-hour block, which will expire long before any proper consensus could be established via ANI. --Elonka 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you were involved. I said you were not being objective. You seem to be favoring one side against the other. If you ask around, you will find that folks on both sides of this dispute were relatively happy with my impartiality when I set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As to Jehochman's argument that Elonka is involved, her only involvement is that she is an admin remaining engaged in the problematic area and trying to sort it out. I would, however, welcom Jehochman beginning to actively and on an ongoing basis deal with these trouble areas. There is a pattern of SA attempting to drive off admins that know about and are willing to review his behavior. I'm of three opinions about this block. One is that it is too long for the specific diffs viewed in isolation. One is that it is too short given the editors long history and multiple ArbComm and community sanctions. The one I'm going to stick with is that 12 hours is within reasonable administrative discretion and any change would be a bigger mistake than the block might be. GRBerry 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I also do not see a problem with a 12-hour block, in light of the various uncivil comments that were directed towards other editors and not in regards to the content. Four blocks in one month is a bit excessive to be handing out only short blocks, especially in regards to the excessive block log that is carried with this account. For the specifics that were listed as reasons for the block, as violations of ArbCom, the block may have been issued with a duration that is too short, but this is a "wake-up call" for SA to reform his communication methods. seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am actually the admin who set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, [8] the attempt at resolution prior to ArbCom. I am extremely familiar with all the editors involved, but have been taking a break from this to work on other things. ScienceApologist can be rude, but short blocks for incivility accomplish little. I've had good luck simply removing SA's inappropriate posts and warning him to back off. That tends to cool the situation and avoids drama. If Elonka would stop assuming bad faith on my part, and maybe listen to what information I can share with her, perhaps we could work together to resolve these problems. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SA has been more than ample chance to reign in his incivility and edit warring; far most chances in fact than most editors would get. Elonka's evidence of SA removing a 4-month old edit as "irrelevant", calling something a "crap point" in a discussion, and deleting a comment from ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs), with a bad faith edit summary of editor should not be editing Wikipedia at all. is more than ample to justify a 12-hour block. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then we should consider a community ban. Another short block is just a waste of time and fuels drama. We've tried short blocks with SA. They don't work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We are seeking an amendment to the ArbCom restriction, a Requests for Comment or some other community-based action at the moment. seicer | talk | contribs 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Let me know if I can help. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikisloth or Wikidragon?

In a lighthearted note, I wonder if you might eb more of a wikidragon than a wikisloth, or perhaps an interesting looking hybrid of the two? HatlessAtless (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring with martinphi"

The first reason given for the current block was "edit warring with martinphi". Since I didn't see anything that looked like this recently, I checked his edit history, and he hasn't made any edits in TEN DAYS [9]. Why would you block a user for issues that are more than ten days old? Elonka, please explain. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[10] and [11] seicer | talk | contribs 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those answers my question. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was because of this edit,[12] where, if you look at the edit summary, you will see that ScienceApologist used "undo" to remove an edit by Martinphi (and just Martinphi) from Journal of Scientific Exploration. If you look at the page history,[13] you will see that this edit was made by Martinphi back in early March.[14] There were multiple intervening edits by other editors, so it would seem that no one else had trouble with the change. For ScienceApologist to come in a few months after the fact, and surgically remove just that edit, with the undo button, was disruptive. He could have edited the paragraph and gotten the same effect, but without the "undo" summary. I would also point out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, which proves that these two editors have been in a dispute for quite some time. Especially because of this, ScienceApologist should not have gone after Martinphi's change in the way that he did. It was disruptive, and part of the reason (along with the other examples of incivility) that I chose to block his account access. --Elonka 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Minderbinder on this one. I think you're a great admin Elonka, but I don't think editing something that a retired user wrote months ago can be considered disruptive. Edit warring with him if the user came out of retirement, yes. Removing something that's bugged him for three months, without opposition, not really. There's plenty of things SA does that people find questionable. I'd just stick with those. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So one revert four months later is not just "edit warring" but also "disruptive"? You really think that is supported by WP:EW? --Minderbinder (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Given that he is also under a community sanction specifically intended to keep the two of them apart, yes, it is. I seriously considered giving him a topic ban for that edit alone. GRBerry 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So if if it's violating a sanction, call it that. Saying it's "edit warring" when it's not just confuses the situation. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, stick with the other stuff (plenty there to talk about, stronger stuff even). I was there when the community sanction was written. Heck, a lot of it was written by me to address the consistent edit warring pattern they were both engaged in, with each other. It's about showing up solely to revert each other, out of the blue, just because they don't like each other. It's not a sanction against editing to your preferred wording three months later after the other user has retired. The sanction was a separate the two. The two are already separated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I'm commenting is because I'm pretty much responsible for pushing that community sanction through. It was necessary to keep Martinphi and ScienceApologist from each other's throats. It's not necessary any longer, and I don't want a sanction I argued for misused. The other principle supporter of the community sanction was Vassyana (who above said they don't see a problem either) and we both at length put our assurances out there that there wouldn't be a misuse. Please don't misuse the sanction. Thank you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a bit of a problem with SA reverting Martin's edits with that edit summary while the restriction is still up, independently of whether Martin has retired or not. Messing with the other editor's edits should not be allowed just because the other editor has retired. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how it may seem that way to you, but if the sanction is going to be applied regardless of its intent -- to separate the two -- and we don't assume retirement fulfills that intent, then I'll have to argue the actual wording so that SA isn't punished unnecessarily for something I did:

• ScienceApologist didn't enter to solely fight against Martinphi. Martinphi posted on his userpage that he is retired. There is no good faith reason to expect that ScienceApologist entered just to provoke an editor who said himself he's no longer participating. Martinphi is still a welcomed editor in good standing, of course, but his contributions aren't his. They never were. No one owns anything. To propose that one's chunk of text are actually their property long after they leave is a strange claim of ownership far beyond the scope of the sanction, one it doesn't provide for and one quite possibly against the whole spirit of Wikipedia.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that he did it on bad faith. I just think that SA is so ideologically allergic to Martin's edits that he can't supress his good faith surges to revert them when he finds one by chance :D --Enric Naval (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To be clear, it is not that I do not see a problem with the edits raised, but rather that I have reservations about what I see as a punitive cool-down block. That said, while I'm not comfortable with the targeting of Martinphi's edit, I did not see that edit summary as uncivil (and honestly don't know how calling material extraneous is uncivil at all). I also would be unwilling to impose a topic ban based on a remedy forcing the users the disentangle when there's no more tangle to avoid. Vassyana (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, my thoughts exactly, which is why I'm saying stick to the other stuff and not make it about the Martinphi-ScienceApologist drama. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is an excellent point. So long as Martinphi is retired (which, knowing the history of retirements around this place, may not be forever), there is no point in that sanction. Shall we go to AN/I and get community approval to suspend that community sanction at any time that one has been retired for at least two weeks? I don't want to remove it completely because it will be a useful tool if they are both active completely, but no reason for it to be a sword of damocles when only one of them is editing. They each already have other sanctions addressed at their general conduct. GRBerry 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on AN/I at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspending a moot sanction.[15] Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet more evidence of uninformed decision making by an uninvolved admin :-( . Shot info (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how saying "removed irrelevant addition" fits the ruling that "Should [ScienceApologist] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, [he] may be blocked." SA was commenting on content rather than on a person, and wasn't rude. Wikipedia could not function as an encyclopedia if comments about content were forbidden. Furthermore, a few months back, I thought there was a consensus (at the least, it was an opinion expressed by some, with which I agree) on ANI that nothing about a civility parole has the power to convert a remark that would be civil if uttered by someone else into an incivility when uttered by the parolee. Cardamon (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sanction modified to add conditional suspension

Per community discussion, the community imposed sanction recorded here has been modified to include a conditional suspension provision, such that if one of the two affected editors is inactive for a significant length of time, that sanction will be suspended until both affected editors are actively editing. GRBerry 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP edits

Edits specifying a user's physical location or other personal information should not be posted to WP:SSP, regardless of availability on other venues. The edits in question have been deleted and removed from recoverable history and should not be re-added. If you have a concern regarding sockpuppetry that requires a user's personal information (including location) be disclosed, please contact an arbiter regarding the matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kylu (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar comments at ANI

Hello ScienceApologist, I just wanted to apologise for my odd reply at the Administrator's noticeboard; like I said, strange things are occuring with my PC, and I greatly appreciate your patience. I wish you the best of luck in finding a solution to your current problem, and if you need anything, please feel free to ask.

Best, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

re:User talk:64.86.17.112

It appears that this IP has now been permanently blocked. I'm not sure it was my report that precipitated this, but apparently I may have accidentally prolonged this problem by accidentally labeling the IP as shared several days ago. In any event, I hope this solves your problem. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Visualizing balance

I've noticed that you sometimes say we're not looking for balance of viewpoints, we're looking for proper weight of viewpoints. They are both the same, and I have a visual that you can use in the future to explain that.

Most people view balance as this: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/s34a.jpg

That's "equal" and most see balance as equal. Wikipedia doesn't describe balance as equal, but it's hard for people to get over their preconceived ideas of balance because, in their mind, if there's a lot of weight on one side of the scale it's not balanced. When they think "balance", they automatically think equally weighted scales.

What you need to do is help them get over their tendency to view balance as scales by showing them this picture. http://www.oomsa.com/files/admin/rulerhammer.jpg

It's the perfect way to visualize it. Note that although there is substantially more hammer there, and the hammer has more weight, there is still balance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I love that hammer picture. I wonder if bending the ruler makes that arrangement too complicated to use as a quick balance-of-torques quiz. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

note from 209.253.120.158

SA, as you can see, I have been doing my best with the cold fusion page, and I am glad that you are contributing. However, this kind of edit (22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) hurts our cause. For me, please try to keep things positive as much as possible. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... so removed... ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

I didn't see a notification to you about this, but a user insists on discussing you, personally, at WP:FRINGE: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#how_can_a_random_anonymous_user_know Antelan 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking pages with sourced information, without consensus, is a form of vandalism

Hi. You should take a look at the types of vandalism page. I will continue to revert blanking based on your individual opinion. I won't template you; consider this your warning. If you continue, I will report you to WP:AIV. II | (t - c) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest. If you're talking about the belladonna article, SA is right. Traditional medicinal uses are worth discussing, both from an anthropological POV and because they may prove to be effective. Pseodoscience that is not specifically relevant to the article in question is not, and per the guideline SA cited, any responsible editor will delete it. kwami (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not talking about the belladona. However, we don't just document things that are effective -- that's just a plain misreading of policy, but I'd like to see where you're getting the impression that it is policy? We document notable uses. I don't believe homeopathy works, but that doesn't mean it is not notable. The blanking I'm referring to: SA just blanked completely Gerson therapy, and has been edit-warring to completely blank List of minority-opinion scientific theories. He called me a "wackjob" cause I have peer-reviewed sources showing that dental amalgam controversy and fluoridation controversy are actual scientific controversies, and asserts (without a source) that these scientists are actually "pseudosciencists". He has not received any backup for blanking either of these pages. Anyway, the proper way to entirely blank pages is with an AfD, which he should feel free to use. II | (t - c) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking pages? That's a paddling...  :-) Shot info (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He had cited WP:Weight for the belladonna edit, and I agreed with him. It isn't a matter of efficacy. I don't think we should have a homeopathy section on every substance ever used in homeopathy, any more than we should have a Klingon section on every language ever written in the Klingon alphabet. kwami (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chaotic phase of recursive development.JPG

Hi. I notice you tagged this image for deletion as "replaceable fair use". However, the image is actually from Commons and has been tagged as freely licensed there. As this looks like a simple mistake, I've just deleted the local image page with your tag, but I though I'd let you know in case there was something else you were trying to do. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Same for Image:Recurrence plot of mathematicaly generated bios.JPG, Image:Recurrence plot of longitude of a part of a British coastline.JPG, Image:RRI bios and chaos.JPG and Image:Transition from chaos to bios.JPG. If you feel these images should be deleted from Commons, you should nominate them for deletion there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd support you in the deletion of these images as they are misattributed. The uploader says that the "website" he got them from "say that its use is allowed if the website is quoted" - but not that they are ok for use for any purpose (derivatives, commercial, etc.). So they should at the least have the Attribution tag, but they are of such poor quality they should be deleted anyway. Verbal chat 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh, you are just making me waste some more time on this. I will make all images on my computer and re-upload them. Happy? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Verbal, what are you talking about? They have 'free for any use' in licensing, don't they? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your words from the file comment: "This is a picture from the file on the website www.creativebios.com and authors say that its use is allowed if the website is quoted." You have therefore selected the wrong license, and have not got permission for "any use," only reuse; unless my reading is mistaken. If you do remake them, could you make them better quality too please? Thanks. Verbal chat 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think my file comment was not complete. Licensing is good, and that's important. Plus, website is offline now, so will be able to check once it is back on again. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent events involving User:FResearcher

Hi there. I don't know you very well, but I'd just like to say how surprised I was by the recent vitriol vented in your direction by FResearcher (talk · contribs), and that I don't think any editor should have to put up with stuff like that. You were understandably annoyed with the source, but your not rising to the bait left by an uninvolved editor showed good character in my opinion. I hope, and I'm sure, that you'll continue editing. My only advice would be to slow down a bit sometimes, and give the system a chance to work - although I understand it hasn't always worked in the past. So I guess I'm contradicting myself. Anyway, good luck with everything. Verbal chat 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(updated for clarification) Verbal chat 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm confused.

Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#New_Introduction_2 here, you say that it took a year to get in and people are still griping. I'm not about to read through four years of history. Are you supporting Hatless' rewrite, or not? Your comment, without knowing the five years of context but your usual anti-fringe views, comes off as ambiguous, esp. combined with your comments about helping him out and the general resistance to change... ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory?

Hi SA, I by no means sit on the side of those who want to dispatch bombers to protect our purity of essence (what a great movie though!). But I think renaming fluoridation as a conspiracy theory is a little over the top - the article name prejudices the content.

Certainly there may be conspiracy theorists editing the article. I could think of one or two. However, there are also some legitimate health concerns which should be discussed in neutral fashion. Yes, that will be an endless battle, but I'd urge you to rethink your move. I was happy enough when my comment that "Controversy" should be "Opposition" seemed to be taken up. Think it over please. Regards. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, there was clearly no consensus for a page move from Water fluoridation opposition to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory, so I have undone the move. In the future, please go through WP:RM for any moves which might be controversial. Thanks, --Elonka 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice for your uncivil comments

Hi, I've raised your comments at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. II | (t - c) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, would you please show much more restraint in the future? I am opposed to sequential blocks. If you look at my block log you will notice that I prefer indefinite blocks. You will be more effective if you use less strident rhetoric. Isn't that what you want? To be effective, and help Wikipedia be better. Please, take my advice, lest I give up on this situation and support a long term ban. At some point the community will lose patience. You need to prevent that from happening. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AE notice

fyi, I have placed a report on WP:AE. Dlabtot (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)