User talk:Sophia/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


You're leaving. That's a shame. I hope you return in the foreseeable future. If not, then I wish you success in your life. You deserve it. Dan :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Goodbye Sophia! I will miss you. Perhaps Al will have a change of heart, and see this through.^^James^^ 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go[edit]

I'm really sorry to see this, Sophia. While we disagreed strongly on article content, I've always respected your integrity and your ability to agree publicly with the people who were normally your "opponents", any time you thought they were right. I've definitely learned from you, and I'll miss you. And, although Str1977 seems not to be online at the moment, I am positive he'll feel the same way. I'll be in touch by e-mail. Best wishes. AnnH 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Sophia leaving? Don't say it's true. And I was just wondering how to return your recent favour. Come one, let me be temporary just as it was the last time! WP needs editors with an open mind and a good heart. Str1977 (smile back) 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the same Sophia who claimed to not be teamed with Alienus[edit]

Yet Alienus leaves and immediately Sophia does too. Not just upset. Leaves the project. Exact same day. I often found myself agreeing with Al, but still, these sorts of secret and denied alliances with an overt "NPOV" purpose but with a covert POV agenda hurt wikipedia. --Anon 64 08:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps she was disgusted with how Al was treated, a person she was friendly with, and would have no further part of it. For you to jump to conclusions, and start claiming a "covert POV agenda" is ridiculous, and in violation of WP:AGF. Considering Sophia is not here to defend herself, I find your attack particularily distasteful. ^^James^^ 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is a bit of a history that you are not aware of. To an extent, I am "contradicting" the many positive comments here by pointing out a problem I had with Sophia. And since she is not here any more, I no longer have to assume good faith, and can recall the facts of prior situations and her claims. But... You know what? I think you are right. It really is tasteless. I consequently apologize. Having said that, I do think that there is way too much drama here on wikipedia and too many secret alliances for POV and I also think it is appropriate to protest that situation, which is part of my message.--Anon 64 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Secret and denied? Covert? Where? She didn't hide her assertion that if Al left, so would she, due to the way that he was treated. And I agree with James; this is harly a civil thing to do, to come here after the fact and make all kinds of bad-faith accusations. This kind of thing hurts Wikipedia too, you know. romarin [talk ] 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, so you know, I made these accusations directly toward her when she was here. She denied any particularly close association with Alienus at the time. I did not believe it then and I see that I was right. However, I agree, my comment was not in good taste and I apologize. --Anon 64 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Romarin is absolutely right, it makes no sense to attack someone as she's leaving. What happened with Al? There's obviously something going on here that I'm not aware of, but it appears SOPHIA needs some time to deal with it, whatever it is. Whether temporary or permanent, it's hard to say without knowing what the issue is. Still, it feels like losing a sister. I am sorry to see her go. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it "makes no sense" to you. It did make sense to me. Everyone is different. I think I wanted to register the sense that not EVERYONE is sad when a person leaves wikipedia, particularly in a snit over the actions of Admins with respect to another wikipedian who was too brisk with others too often (I actually sort of like Alienus, but the Admins had a good point). Sophia was not a bad editor and though I do not feel she was completely honest with me, she did not really do me any harm. My comment was tasteless. I would remove it, but histories exist, so instead I apologize. --03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, a lot happened. If you really want to go on an easter egg hunt through Wikiworld, start with Al's talk page (but go into the history because he wiped it clean when he left). There should be sufficient links from there, to the AN/I discussions as well as the ArbCom case, if you're really feeling masochistic. ;-) romarin [talk ] 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, Anon. I can't speak for Sophia, and I didn't even have very many interactions directly with her, but from what I understand, she left Wikipedia because of her distaste with the system itself, not necessarily because of a particular editor. Yes, these things came out due to some disputes between Alienus and some admins, but I don't know that it was necessarily Al himself that caused her to go. She saw a lot of things happening (as did many of us) during the last few weeks that disillusioned her with Wikipedia enough to leave. Again, I can't speak for her, but please consider that perhaps she was not dishonest with you at all, when she claimed no close association. Without knowing the whole story (and remember, none of us except Sophia herself do), there is no way to know whether or not you were "right". If it makes you feel better, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. But please just remember that jumping to conclusions is not usually the best way to go. Or as they say, when you assume, you just make an ass out of u and me :-). romarin [talk ] 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the pop/trite phrase about assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions. They are necessary for ordinary living and for reasonable conversation. And when it comes to this particular case, it is reasonable to use evidence to test a theory. The evidence supports my view. I told Sophia this when she was here and I would again. I believe she would deny it as she did before.
I would suggest that you are not so upset about my making an assumption as much as my being judgmental. But, notice you do not mind being a bit judgmental yourself. You would surely say that your judgment came with a cause that I supplied. Do you suppose mine was not at least as equally informed as yours? Is that not a judgment (or if you prefer -- "assumption") of its own?
This is not to excuse the tastelessness of my approach. On the other hand, the tastelessness also does not invalidate my point either. It is very clear to me that there are groups of people who work together to push agendas and POV. So far, I see two general types -- Social Liberals, who seem to me to be stronger, and Christian Conservatives or Evangelical Christians, who seem less organized. There may be other groups as well -- perhaps political -- but I have not observed them. I think to some extent this sort of social network is in play over the Alienus Controversy and I think SOPHIA was part of it. Perhaps you are too. Although I sort of like Alienus and noticed a definite improvement in his manner of working with people, he did have a tendency to be rough with people and he did so in the name of NPOV when in fact, he had a very strong POV leading to strong edit wars and many many offensive reverts. I believe that people who see him leaving are upset that an ally in their POV war is now gone. Look at the biases expressed on the user pages of all his supporters -- they have a general tendency in one direction. Is this a statistical anomaly?
I am not willing to shut off my intelligence and deny the obvious existance of such groups or their efforts which are either clearly or obliquely attested to on user pages (including SOPHIA's before she cleared it), in subject talk pages, and on off-site websites dealing with wikipedia. These are public but who knows what more pure evidence would exist in private emails?. I consider these organized POV efforts to be bad for wikipedia. I could have said it in a better, more tasteful, tactful and nicer way. But that failure does not make me want to retreat from the point I was making, even if the point itself is offensive. And I would not expect some people to like what I have to say, even if I had said it with more sugar.--Anon 64 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, I was just trying to lighten up the situation with that little saying (did you notice the :-) ?). It was supposed to be humorous. As I said, you are certainly entitled to believe what you want, as are the rest of us. As far as I am concerned, this has gone on long enough and I don't want to get into anything with you right now. This particular issue is over; Al and Sophia are gone. Ok? I, for one, am done. romarin [talk ] 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis[edit]

I recently responded to a peer review request for this article, and User:RoyBoy requested I pass the following sentiment therein along to you:

Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.

I get the impression it was a bit of a struggle getting there, but I think you can be proud of what you've acheived :-) --jwandersTalk 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Sophia retired. CF this diff. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I just checked your contribs, and I noticed you were back. Welcome back.

What happened? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 05:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you come back. I read your comments on Archie's page and think for purposes of sanity you're making the right decision in staying way from contentious articles. On the other hand, as I enjoy insanity, I'm still all wrapped up in contentious articles.  ;) Again, welcome back! •Jim62sch• 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm overjoyed that your are back among the wikified! --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sophia! I just noticed you are back. I'm glad. Welcome back. Wikipedia is a better place with you.Giovanni33 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a little late, but I too wanted to welcome you back and to say that you were missed in your absence. Hope the real world outside of wikipedia treated you well.--Andrew c 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

*waves* - RoyBoy 800 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planets[edit]

I thought you might be interested in voting.


Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanna have some fun?[edit]

I've been doing quite a few Good article reviews. For the most part it is fun, the editors respond respectfully and cheerfully when change requests are made and you can see tangible improvements as a result. Quite a bit of difference from the Jesus and Martin Luther wars. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Martin Luther wars? You mean the Crusades and the Peasants' War? "And they'll know we are Christians by our love" (sigh). Saints and sinners, all at the same time... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm so happy you are back and I hope you will survice this time around. I have a lot going on now so I've been to busy to continue contributing in any major ways, at least for now; i just do minor stuff on various articles I check on at whim. So, I can't say I'm avoiding all conflicts per se, but I'll probably avoid articles that make them inevitable given my current time constrants, and I've committed to adjusting my own editing style to better work with other editors--even if I don't get my way, which is ok. This should lesson the frequency and nature of the conflicts that do arise. Hopefully enough to escape the spector of the bureauracracy. I hear that AI has been banned for a year? Sad to hear that. I wonder if some back channel diplomacy could be had that allows him to return before then?

Oh, P.S. I finally got to see the DVD "The God that wasn't there." Its available on online. I thought the main movie was a little light, but overall not bad. The best part were all the longer interviews, all the bonus material.Giovanni33 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my ban is indefinite in practice, as each edit I now make (or, more likely, is falsely attributed to me) is an excuse to restart the year. Even if I stopped -- which I won't -- I would still be expected to apologize for my "crimes" before being allowed back, and I won't be doing that as I have nothing to be sorry for. In short, I'm out for good. While this isn't particularly fair, it's also not important, as I will almost certainly never edit as Alienus again.
You see, I've learned that the best way to influence Wikipedia is to completely ignore the so-called "community" and its admins. Consider that the majority of the bans I experienced as Alienus came from my ongoing protection of Wikipedia from LaszloWalrus and other Randist zealots. Now, I continue to thwart them and others, but without wasting any time debating, getting blocked, or fighting with the corrupt, incompetent admins. I am much more effective now than I ever was before.
In short, Wikipedia is a nice idea, but it just doesn't work, at least not with these assholes in charge. I'll continue to contribute to it in my own way, following my own rules, and there's simply nothing at all that the admins can do about it. I will only stop if the block is lifted and I'm given full and permanent arbcom powers, which will happen shortly after the first frost hits hell.
What amuses me most is how obvious it has become to me that I'm not the only one who's taken the path of the renegade and vigilante. For example, at least half of the edits attributed to so-called Alienus sock-puppets now come from people other than myself. Perhaps I've started a trend, but more likely I've simply caught the attention of the silent majority that refuses to allow Wikipedia to turn into partisan crap but just as steadfastly refuses to participate in the "community" on its own flawed terms. It is this non-group of non-participants that has some of the most lasting effect on the site's content, while the people with accounts spend their time bickering pointlessly.
Anyhow, if you ever want to drop me a line, I'm still Bye for now. 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possible imagine." Obi-Wan Kenobi to Darth Vader in Episode 4 - a New Hope. Sophia 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, given that you are operating outside the confines of what the system currently deems legitimate, you are not bound by it. Indeed, you are able to operate with some definite advantages. There is a role for both regular users with names, and the anonymous, non-identifiable user, not pegged to a particular persona. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. In your case, its forced, but with that comes the spirit of a rebel that is kept alive and well. That is a good thing. :) Stay true and gold.Giovanni33 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sophia had it right. In the movie, Obi-Wan allowed Darth Vader to strike him down, knowing that he would be more powerful in death. Likewise, I refused to defend myself at that mockery of a trial, knowing that my time was better spent actually fixing Wikipedia instead of playing power games. The fact that I can do more from beyond the grave than while I lived just goes to show how fundamentally broken their system is. The lesson here is that, so long as I played their game, they had power over me. Now I am beyond their reach and therefore invulnerable. 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Physics Articles[edit]

Sophia, on the non-standard cosmology page you stated, "I hoped editing the physics articles would not carry the same baggage as the religious ones I previously spent a lot of time with but I was wrong..."

Please don't loose your enthusiasm for editing science articles, and in particular the natural science articles in physics. I am a Physics Wikipedian working with the WP: Physics Project and I can tell you that you'll find many resources that allow you to edit or support articles related to your many interests from that project page. While the non-standard cosmology article is controversial, it is so because it is not firmly rooted in the basic sub-disciplines of physics but instead involves omission or reinterpretation of higher level disciplines such as statistics, quantum electrodynamics, and cosmology and when you mix people with different worldviews with some of the more advanced or esoteric disciplines whose models are constantly in flux with the most recent research you always get debate, so don't get discouraged. I suggest leaving that article for a while. In its stead, I would highly encourage you spend some time looking over some other exciting articles such as Photon, Gravity, Electromagnetism, or Dark Matter. Here is a compiled list of some of the most important articles on physics in Wikipedia. And since you're a seasoned Wikipedian I know you're not afraid to make bold edits, especially if you have verifiable sources cited. Just don't get too frustrated by some of the debates going on in Cosmology, Entropy, or Big Bang, etc. If I can ever be of help, let me know. And if there are any tips you might have for me as an editor, I need and welcome them (here is my talk page). Cheers, Astrobayes 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the link to the compiled list of physics articles above. Cheers, Astrobayes 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Olive branch[edit]

It looks like you were offended by some of my comments on the Talk:Non-standard cosmology page. I'm sorry if this is the case. I really valued your comments and contributions, despite the fact that it often seemed like you weren't quite engaging in what I was saying. In any case, your comments along with another user's has given me a new line of attack for the article which would require an overhaul but would represent a substantial improvement to the article and keep its scope and standards much better in check.

So please check out what I have to say. I don't want you to become frustrated because I really don't think our disagreements are so major.

--ScienceApologist 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sophia! I just logged in and noticed that my article is tagged as AfD. I read the comments and I think it is tagged for personal reasons of the AfD initiator. Would you pls leave your comment? As the author, I do not see myself the right person to give comments. I really appreciate your opinion, regardless of what you decide. Thanx! -DrMoslehi 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)


Sorry about not responding sooner, your message got buried. It does look suspicious. An admin would be best to deal with it; I'll post it to the Admin board, as I'm pressed for time and I'm unsure what to make of the links. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)