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 the exact wording 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 a 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.

This user is block free - (see my block log here!).

This editor is a
Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Unobtainium
Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.

This editor is Grand Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to keep the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias, including its ancient access keys.

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Enjoy.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/824

Discussion of scholarly consensus on the Identifying reliable sources talk page

We're talking about your recent edit to Identifying reliable sources. You may want to drop by and leave a comment. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt's edits to Fringe theory and Pseudohistory

You got any suggestions? All this has been gone over time and again at several noticeboards and talk pages and it's just wasting time and energy. I've put the same message on Verbal's talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Service awards

Hello, ජපස. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
Message added 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#I_can_find_no_place...

Thought it would be polite to let you know I've made a very late reply to you. You only need to reply back if you want to, though. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Your additions to AfD all seem to be good candidates for deletion. This barnstar is for finding them and listing them -- a job that always needs to be done. Keep up the good work! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WUWT

Your use of blog posts and twitter in this edit shocks me, [1] please do not use such sources again, thank you mark nutley (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SA: ArbCom has asked us to take a break from editing CC articles. Many of us have been abiding by this request for 3 weeks now. I think you should give it a break. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but I'm of the opinion that improving the encyclopedia should be done first. Arbcom never asked me personally to stop editing, and if they really believed we should stop editing, they could have protected the lot of articles, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for Climate Change articles

In regards to this edit, I would like to alert you to this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not know about that. Feel free to remove the template, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. I explained why I tagged it in this edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Block free ?

Was wondering if you would explain what you think the phrase "block free" means, as used in the "NoBlocksFemale" user box that you display at the top of this page ? Thanks Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, no one has ever defined it. In my opinion, it means that I'm not currently blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

[2] You were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement Minor4th 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

While we disagree on the status of the article, I appreciate you clarifying and hatting the matter of who wrote the article. Thanks and regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I think your GA review was fine from a procedural standpoint. I just disagreed with one (and only one) of the passes you gave it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Pleas make your case for what requires admin action, if you want it open. Please add your claim that " a bit theatrical." and request your desired punishment Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user has again closed your report, please feel free to reopen and state your case. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have commented that for such reports as yours users should be blocked. I hope you understand that, thanks. Feel free to reply. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me twice. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw, its been closed again by someone else, feel fee to re open, Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see here thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

NB

Please be aware that I have left you two questions on ANI to which I would appreciate answers. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion to just let the entire matter drop. You can take that any way you want to. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So you accused me of being snippy and refused to provide any evidence or substantiation of that. I'll take that the way any normal person would. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Watts as a Denialist

HI there. I was alerted to this edit of yours, where you claim that among others, labels Watts as a denialist. I did a search through the article, and I could not find evidence of that. Could you please clarify? Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)