User talk:Oz Waver

Busby[edit]

No, I did not "inadvertently" state that all of his work is about his "theories". (His poems, for example, are almost certainly not about effects of low-level ionizing radiation.) The way you've left it, with his "work about", well, that's rather questionable grammar, isn't it? Yakushima (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol for sending messages[edit]

They go at the end of a user talk page, not at the beginning. Use four tildes in a row to sign. Yakushima (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation/plagiarism of LLRC website[edit]

Starting with this edit[1], you copy -- WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR -- material from the LLRC website. As it says on every edit page, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Are you the original author of those words? If not, and if you don't attribute the source, it's not only copyright violation, it's plagiarism. Yakushima (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "It's not plagiarism if there's a link" doesn't cut it, on Wikipedia. If you don't supply clear evidence that you are quoting, rather than composing, you are effectively claiming the words as your own. See WP:PLAG. Yakushima (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you never going to own up to this error? Violations of WP:PLAG undertaken knowingly -- that's very serious. Unknowingly? Right. Yakushima (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct I did copy and paste. It was in error I am learning the protocols quickly of Wiki and undertake to abide by them Oz Waver (talk) 12:,38 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"poor form"??[edit]

The edit summary "Yakushima raised controversies before allowing explanation of the theory (poor form))" suggests that you think Busby meets Wikipedia notability criteria independently of the theories that appear to have made Busby most notable. If so, WP:ACADEMIC would be the applicable guideline (especially since I don't think he's famous as a poet). If you can cite Wikipedia-acceptable reliable sources (WP:RS) to such effect, feel free to rewrite the introduction in a manner conforming to some supposed perception that Busby was already a famous scientist who only happens to have ruffled a few feathers in radiobiology circles and the nuclear industry with his iconoclastic theories. However, the common perception of him, at this point, is pretty well set: he's a guy in a beanie who sounds scientifically authoritative as he claims that Fukushima Dai-ichi radiation releases could eventually kill 400,000 people. I don't think it's "poor form" to lead with controversy, when the subject himself hardly shrinks from it but rather shows great appetite for it.

In any case, in Wikipedia terms, it is poor form to dump large chunks of a long resume for a subject into the article about that person (WP:NORESUMES), and to copy, without proper attribution, large chunks of text from any source (WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAG) both of which you have demonstrably done. Go lecture somebody else about "poor form", please. Yakushima (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in grammar and style[edit]

Regarding this [2] change, are you familiar with the concept of run-on sentence? In general, I'm spending a lot of time fixing up your writing; it's little wonder that you prefer to copy wholesale from other sources without proper attribution. Yakushima (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with other Low-Dose Radiation researchers (Christopher Busby)[edit]

Busby's history with the subject is a history of conflict with other low-dose radiation researchers. There's almost nothing else to his scientific career since 1992 but that conflict. And these conflicts are most of what makes him notable. The issues he takes up do not themselves define the "Low-Dose Radiation Debate" (which was your proposed section heading); he is on the extremes of that debate, which ranges from hormesis to LNT and onward, until you get to Busby, who is at the outer edge. (Allison and Wakefield actually disagree with each other, did you know that?) Busby is so far to the extreme, in fact, that he faults the CERRIE delegates from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for voting the LLRC minority statement out of the CERRIE final report. Are you getting it yet? Yes: even people hailing from relatively ardent activist environmental groups decided that Busby was out on a limb. Yakushima (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting what specifically? So far Busby has been right about most things. His detractors are from the Nuclear Industry. He is a recognised expert and not as far to the extreme as you claim WP:HONESTY WP:NOTSCANDAL. I am dismayed why you continue to attack this man especially when your identity is known, this leaves you wide open for proceedings as Busby has apparently started to do. Nuclear and it's radiological effect are now understood, Busby has significantly contributed to "internal" emitter debate, this the central argument of second event theory. Modern research has now accepted this damaging form of exposure as it was previously ignored. You could say in fact that Busby was ahead of his time and received much criticism for it. Oz Waver (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats and threatening another user at [3], [4], and [5]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please review the comments and allegation made.

No where in the comments did I threaten legal action. I did suggest that clear bias in presenting and comments left by user Yakushima may leave him open to proceedings as it may be potentially liable. There is a difference between a threat and a possibility by the Person the page is written on. I would also like to further point out the constant violations of WP:BLP WP:COATRACK WP:GAME WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:HONESTY and WP:NPV on Chris Busby by the complainant.

Further on neutral point of view... Yakushima states... Busby's history with the subject is a history of conflict with other low-dose radiation researchers. There's almost nothing else to his scientific career since 1992 but that conflict. And these conflicts are most of what makes him notable. The issues he takes up do not themselves define the "Low-Dose Radiation Debate" (which was your proposed section heading); he is on the extremes of that debate, which ranges from hormesis to LNT and onward, until you get to Busby, who is at the outer edge. (Allison and Wakefield actually disagree with each other, did you know that?) Busby is so far to the extreme, in fact, that he faults the CERRIE delegates from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for voting the LLRC minority statement out of the CERRIE final report. Are you getting it yet? Yes: even people hailing from relatively ardent activist environmental groups decided that Busby was out on a limb. Yakushima (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to his Scientific Career: See publications in Chris Busby also here is his C.V. http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf How does this work exactly administrator?

I have attempted to reason and make a sincere apology for bringing up "legal" talk and agree this may appear as harassment. This would no longer happen should I be unblocked.

Further any attempt that I have made and discussions on Chris Busby discussion page has not been negotiated or reasonable. Changes such as debate have been replaced with conflict and makes the page far from neutral.

Hopefully someone will step in and review the page and discussion to date, even if I am not unblocked. I am sincere in my belief.

Thank you for your consideration, Oz Waver Oz Waver (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)"

Decline reason:

Please make another request limited only to discussing your own conduct, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

60.242.21.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Making legal threats: personal attacks and harassment

Blocking administrator: 2over0 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: This is a procedural decline only. You have been blocked directly and the template above is the correct one to use. TN X Man 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]