Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:59, 15 October 2010

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

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!).

Blocked

If I had been an uninvolved admin with regard to you and I had seen your merge I would have blocked you immediately. So no joke. Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's outrageously contrary to WP:BOLD, WP:PUNITIVE, etc. You need to think very carefully about why that would have been your immediate reaction. Misplaced Pages is not a police state where we block people for trying to fix the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the police stae but not the rest of the wikilaws. You clearly were not in good faith acting collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia and were instead imposing your POV. Also this article is clearly under sanctions, sanctions which you are fully aware of and a GA nom which you were clearly fully aware of because of the clear notices and your intense activity in this regard. Therefore it would be perfectly within any uninvolved admin's right to block you. If you had then chosen to appeal against such a block I could only see 6 month bans coming from such actions as multiple users would certainly confirm the validity of the block. Therefore feel pleased that I am the sort who just warns people directly (unlike yourself) and stop digging a hole for yourself. Polargeo (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are totally out of line as the ANI is shaping up to show. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SA, it was an ill-advised edit that achieved very little. PG, threats are bad. Never approach a situation with "I would..." If you are too involved to act, you may be too close to have proper perspective. Saying "you shouldn't have done this because x" is fine. If probably you're too close to something to make a decision free of bias, you shouldn't say what the decision should be. To both of you - neither of you look great here, and that's always a bad thing during an arbcomm case. Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Edit" singular? So the redirect of WUWT was the problem? The adding all the content to Anthony Watts (blogger)? The redirect of surfacestations? Or was it all of the above including the talkpage comments? What I see as a potential for an interestingly jump-started conversation devolved into a free-for-all arguing about idiocy such as whether a GA-nom and an open peer-review "protects" an article from WP:BOLD. It's ludicrous, all the more so because I did not get into any edit wars over the topic. There's this ridiculous thought that people should not follow the WP:BRD model in controversial articles. I see no consensus on Misplaced Pages for that. If you believe this to be the case, try to get it included at WP:BRD or WP:BOLD. At least then you'll have a leg to stand on. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ekpyrotic universe

If you have the time and inclination, might I convince you to make sure I have not stated anything particularly stupid at Ekpyrotic universe? It used to claim that the model is a challenge to the Big Bang as opposed to the inflation model. My only real exposure to the topic is from the 2004 Discover article, though, and they can have a tendency to exaggerate things. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Discover article does seem to be a bit over-the-top in its excitement. I guess people really love branes! But your additions look good to me. ScienceApologist (talk)

Zombie cosmologists love branes? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom discussion

I started a discussion on some of your recent edits here. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Minor4th 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon | 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a note just to jog your memory. All but you and one other have posted their summaries. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If I can butt in, without making an arse of myself. Actually there's a procedural problem. SA pushed us towards a complete review of what was recognized by all as an unsatisfactory page. Tom and I have virtually completed one version, I don't know how the other version by Smatprt is going. But what do we do with the original page, which no one liked, now that we have two alternative and improved versions vying to take its place. Who decides, how are these things adjudicated, and do we have to go to mediation over the old page, or should mediation focus on our respective efforts with the new page? I'm flummoxed, but some guidance from SA, or Seddon, would be appreciated here.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nishi - I'm a bit confused as well. The mediation issues ] have nothing to do with the separate issue of the alternate SAQ articles. What procedural problem are you talking about? Also - can you provide a diff where SA "pushed us towards a complete review of what was recognized by all as an unsatisfactory page" because I don't believe that was our assignment. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What was our assignment? I can plead oldage and incipient Alzheimer's of course, but young blokes should recall. Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been working under the assumption that this was our assignment "Resolved: A merge is appropriate. Please sandbox a proposal that will replace this article and eventually all the offending articles. Content forking should be done after a decent main article is written if and only if it is deemed necessary in light of WP:CFORK." Here is the link: ].Smatprt (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We collaborated on that sandbox to 'replace' the article. That was our collective brief's essence, to which I alluded above. Correct me if my frail memory errs, but you unilaterally created a second page hived off from that sandbox article, effectively separating your work from ours? If so, whatever the original remit, the two versions (actually 3) that were polished according to SA's request for a replacement article, are now done. Which brings me back to my original point. If we have done, respectively, our tasks, of 'sandboxing proposals to replace the article', where do we go from here. Do we leave everything languishing, or do the two competing versions go to some RfC to see which one more closely acccomplishes the remit given us by SA, namely to get 'a decent main article . .written'? Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The second option, the RfC, is in order. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ours is not quite done. We still lack the major candidates' cases and a bit more history. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, Can you give us a rough time within which that at least will be completed? None of the others, the article which dissatisfied all, nor sandbox one, nor sandbox 3 or the mother merged article which no one looks at. I was under the impression the only article which is close to being completed, as requested, was the fork Smatprt created for us to work on? (Sorry SA for talking this over here, but nothing seems to be happening to clarify the confusion or advance the mediation)Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I had to take some time off to preserve my sanity--I can only take so much of one topic, but I'm planning on getting back to it tonight and tomorrow, so it shouldn't be too long now. (I also have to proof the refs and modify the Shapiro refs page numbers.) The version as it stands is still more comprehensive, neutral, and up to Misplaced Pages source standards than any of the others, though. In fact, I think it would probably breeze through GA review. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

SA - can you address the questions on the table - ie: Was not this whole process supposed to be a "merge" following your decision that "a merge was appropriate"? Were we not to merge the various articles (in your words - "sandbox a proposal that will replace this article and eventually all the offending articles") as you directed? Also - we have 3 sandboxed articles (one giant merged article, one parent article with sub-articles forked, and then Tom and Nishidani's version) for the community to compare. Who will write up a neutral statement introducing these articles to the community for their comments? Because I feel you have become an involved editor, and aligned yourself in a related deletion discussion quite clearly with Tom and Nishidani, I would like to request an uninvolved administrator to oversee the conclusion of this process. Will you agree to that? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everything is explained on the mediation page. If not, let me know what more you want. If you can get an administrator or any other outside user involved, I think that's great! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just announce the intent to determine which article meets Misplaced Pages standards of neutrality and reliability and give the addresses and ask for comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if my request wasn't clear, Smatprt? Why did you fork the sandbox article, leaving yourself with one version to work, and us with another? That created the mess you describe above, and I didn't complain. But I would like to know what the reasoning behind that fork was.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't really see a "mess" at all. My intention was to offer the community a choice - As a result, we have 3 sandbox articles to look at - sandbox3, which is the mother of all merged articles (but that was the assignment); then we have my version, which is basically Sandbox3 cut down and forked to subarticles; and then we have your and Tom's suggested version - which is still not done. As far as I am concerned, both my version and Sandbox3 are finished and ready for community comment. But sure, I'll keep tweaking them as the months go by while we wait for you and Tom to finish. The only mess I see is the one you and ScienceApologist may have created on the mediation page, where SA, at your instigation, has veered way off path. I'm trying to AGF, but are you two trying to scuttle the mediation of the issues Tom and I have raised there? They are completely separate from the issue of the main SAQ article, so I really don't understand your comments to SA about "procedural problems" with the mediation? Have I made the least bit of sense? Smatprt (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I’d ask you to refrain from conspiracy theories. Your language here unwontedly introduces the vagrant notion I ‘instigate’ someone, an administrator, to do my bidding, which is absurd, given my peon status here, and I have no notable history of interaction with SA. You wonder if there is a plot abroad to ‘scuttle’ mediation? These insinuations are, in an edit which assures us you proceed according to WP:AGF, ironical.

To the crux of the problem.

There are, now, effectively 4 pages, you admit. There was the original page (A), which became unworkable, though it is still being edited, by yourself and others. The advice was to create a counter page to resolve its problems. The alternative page was created (A2=sandbox1) which by your own unilateral actions, you took over, becoming your trimmed version of A. (A3=sandbox2) was a copy of A2 you hived off so Tom and I could work it. (A4=sandbox3) merged either A or A2 with several other articles.

To provide Misplaced Pages with a choice between 4 pages, 3 of which are variations, the one of the other, with no significant change (in formatting, or content) from the original contentious article, is not a service, but an invitation to confusion, ‘a mess’.

You say your versions are ‘ready’, whereas our version is not.

You have not produced any new version.

Tom and I so far have made 1,144 edits to produce an alternative version, which is (a) radically different from all previous pages (b) formatted according to the requirements of GA articles, with consistency of citation throughout (c) sourced and footnoted strictly according to the best practice advised by WP:RS policy (d)calibrated delicately according to policies regarding WP:Undue weight and WP:fringe, and (e) aspires to WP:NPOV, whether successfully or not is up to others to determine.

(A2=sandbox1) is your version of A with 144 minor edits, only 56 after you effectively started working on your own by having Tom and I work elsewhere. 76,043 bytes to 77,145 bytes, i.e. almost no change except for the 82,624 bytes we now have which concerns mainly external links. In other words, you have not significantly participated in a redrafting of a counter proposal, but simply tweaked the old problematical page, or jumbled together several pages at (A4=sandbox3), all problematical, to create an impossibly long page that no one edits. This last page has a history of 25 edits, runs to an impossible 296,564 bytes, with 449 footnotes, and is simply a collapsing into one motherpage of several articles, on de Vere, Marlowe, Bacon all of which were poorly edited, badly formatted, and in deep trouble.

You emphasize the 'merge' aspect, whereas Tom and I have emphasized the aspect of making one page, the key page (A), acceptable, and thoroughly written to best quality standards, leaving in the air the merge proposal for secondary consideration. There is a reason for this. All the several pages that might be merged are themselves intolerably poor, badly sourced, and conflicted.

Tom assures us that A3=sandbox2 is close to being ready. So, since A has to go, the choice is between A2 and A3, in short between A with a few desultory tweaks and A3, which is a radical redraft. A4 cannot, at this point, be enlisted, because it is simply a merge of several articles, with no work done to improve it. I would remind you that articles should optimally be written according to policy requirements, and the only article of the 4 which we have so far, which has been drafted according to the stringent protocols of best wiki practice, is A3. Perhaps it is not adequate, but I challenge any independent, neutral analyst of GA articles to survey all 4, and determine that A, A2, and A4 resemble in any way the kind of work required optimally for wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dudes, I just want to apologise, I have no internet at the moment and havn't for the last few days. Please bear with me, I will try and get some internet access in my university tomorrow and catch up. Seddon | 17:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

13 Things That Don't Make Sense

Hi. In the article 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, created 4 August 2010, there appears the statement "experiments using CR-39 plastic screens do indicate that nuclear reaction takes place during cold fusion". I'd apppreciate your view. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. I read the book about two weeks ago. Not the best, but not the worst. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Invite participation.

User_talk:Abd#You_know_better_than_that.... I've been meaning to invite you to participate. After all, you do understand some of the physics, which is better than many. I'd really love to know what you think about heat/helium, for example. I responded in detail to you on my Talk page.

Oh, by the way. I really DGAF whether I'm banned or not, because I have no opinion that I'm better off not-banned, nor that Misplaced Pages is better off with me writing. I've become expert on the topic, and if Misplaced Pages wants the participation of experts, well, here I am, warts and all. It's been said that I should write less, but when I write less, I find that I'm even less understood, unless I spend the massive additional time to boil it down to pure polemic, which I can do, but, frankly, I'm not even close to having the time for something as unimportant as the exact state of a single Misplaced Pages article, on your average day. As long as I'm not banned, I do consider that I have some kind of obligation to disclose what I know that is relevant to current article state.

If someone like you was participating there, and helping certain other clueless editors with the science, it would mean much less that I'd find necessary to explain, I believe.

Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program and Misplaced Pages Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

General announcement re:Climate Change

If any topic-banned users would like to let me know about particular concerns they have regarding climate change articles (especially specific climate change articles I may not have noticed), please let me know here on my talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)