Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:49, 12 July 2011

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong pages

Gaaa!!!!

lol

The pages that I actually wanted deleted were the subpages of User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup. I didn't actually want any subpages of User:Ohms law deleted... If you could restore the subpages of User:Ohms law, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for trying to help though! :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me oh my oh no, I seem to have had a reading comprehension fail - rereading your initial question to AN, I pretty clearly misinterpreted your request. Thank you so much for having a sense of humor about it. Now then, now that that is sorted out like it never happened - would you like everything that starts with User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/ deleted? I suppose that would be due penance for snafuing the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, go for it! I know that there's a lot of pages there. There's really no rush, either. Take your time, get some help of you'd like, whatever. I just don't need them any longer, really. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. In that case, I will treat it as my 'stop screwing around and learn the API' project'. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Post-dated comment to prevent archiving (not off my radar, moving to a front burner this weekend). - 2/0 (cont.) 01:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work

Hi!

The talk page at Quantitative easing was spiraling out of control. I think that your cautions and one block were well-justified and well-written, and should suffice to restore productive editing.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Reading through the associated talkpages was a painful slog, and Vexorg was not acting in a vacuum. Still, de minimis and all that, so I can hope that everyone will calm down a bit now. Good luck and happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your resolution at QE. It was starting to give me stomach troubles. I'll follow your advice and stay away for the next month. LK (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at here. My reliably sourced text about electronic money production is now on the page, after several reverts from editors who were unwilling to read the existing citations. Several other editors attempted similar edits and were knocked back with zero efforts made to make a compromise, while abusive comments were made about 'fringe' and 'this is not the utube bear channel'. I made several attempts to produce a compromise using the existing important citations from Bank of England and Ben Bernanke. User LK is out of control. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Hi Andrew! Please discuss substantive economic issues on the article's talk-page, and avoid comments about LK, as he should avoid comments about you. Do you agree with the voluntary withdrawal, as LK has?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really puzzled why so many people went to so much effort to get well cited reliable information from being presented on the QE page. LawrenceKhoos abusive comment to Rexorg that money printing was fringe was very peculiar in the context of bernankes printing press speech and other central bank comments. Other editors also peculiarly had huge difficulty with the QE description by the BOE. I am totally at a loss to understand why wiki editing has to be such enormously hard work where editors who attempt to provide balance like me get singled out by a gang of people who as often as not are pretty clueless about real world practices and instead seem to be relying on text books for their expertise in trashing other editors work. Wiki will never be a quality encyclopedia if people prefer opinions over quality citations from actual central bank practitioners and operational documents. According to people like Lawrence, the BOe is outside of the mainstream of economic thought. It is just odd.

And it is pretty outragious that people can trash me personally by saying things like 'this is not the bears Utube description of QE' on a revert of a BOE description of QE, where evidently these people who do not get warnings and are pretty clueless - and probably young and naive and enjoying the power deletion gives them.

Fundamentally if you dont agree with this you will have to prevent me being on wiki. Obviously i think procedures are pretty useless if people like LK can go around like they do being so consistantly nasty to other editors who are doing their best to create a useful source of informationAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Both you and LK were admonished. LK has agreed to leave the QE article, per 2/0's advice, and he seems not to have made any more comments about you; in fact, he has made useful contributions to other articles, setting me straight, for example. On the other hand, you have not taken a rest from your long and hard work toward a well-deserved WikiBreak, which I suspect shall soon be yours.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Threatening me again is going to achieve nothing good for wiki. My point has really nothing to do with LK. My point is that editors like LK are preventing reliable sources from appearing on Wiki and doing so in an abusive manner.

The fact that so many people prevent central banking citations appearing on wiki is not really anything at all to do with me. Other people like me who come to wiki will get the same treatment. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Please stop violating AGF and NPA policies. My concern has been strictly with your behavior, particularly your NPA violations. I have never edited anything about central banks, and I have linked central bank only once in my life! Please end the drama and do some productive editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cutting Wikibreak short

Dear 2over0,
I was on one-month wikibreak but I'm going to cut it short, and thought I should explain to you why. I don't see my staying away as being helpful to Misplaced Pages. Pandaemonioum still rages at Quantitative easing. This was in part due to the instigation of banned user Karmaisking socking as EuroRIP, who I would likely have identified if I had been around. Andrewedwardjudd has not taken your advice to take a wikibreak, and is instead arguing with (and abusing) other participants as much as ever.
I have however, taken your advice to heart and will try to be more circumspect in my future interactions. I would ask that you keep an eye on the other editors involved, as I believe that their participation has been, and likely will be, disruptive in the future.
Regards, LK (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not editing at Quantitative easing. I'm just not on wikibreak anymore. LK (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yamaha DX1 page being violated by 2over0

You blocked me for nothing on the Yamaha DX1 page. You made a decision and you never read the consensus on the talk page Yamaha DX1. You do so without reading the consensus on the article but also I noticed your using 2 ip addresses under 2 user names, which is a violation on Misplaced Pages. I am forwarding a complaint on your user profile and for blocking without reading the consensus first. This is above the law.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated at your talkpage, I blocked you for edit warring, see . Please read the Misplaced Pages:Consensus policy, as the discussions at Talk:Yamaha DX1 indicate a consensus against your edits; you may also be interested in the advice at the Dispute resolution policy page for attracting additional input when you find yourself unable to reach agreement at a talkpage. I am not sure what you mean regarding additional accounts; I have a policy-compliant alternate account, User:2over0_public, but the only edits I have made to Yamaha DX1 have been related to protecting the page following a report to the Edit warring noticeboard back in February. If you would like to request independent review of my assertion that I am not operating any other accounts, the proper forum is Sockpuppet investigations. If you would like to request independent review of my admin actions related to Yamaha DX1, open a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. In either case, please let me know here if you do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I'm not sure if you still follow it, but Globalstatus is still arguing in the Yamaha DX1 talk page. Wolftengu (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguing no Wolftengu I don't think so, bringing in a discussion on a consenus on unfairness of rules violating the images on 500 x 400 and deleting them without consenus and other images. I have the right to bring it up for discussion.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

QE edit warring/personal attacks

After a brief respite following your well conceived warning, Andrewedwardjudd is back to edit warring and making personal attacks, despite multiple warnings. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been checking in on that article every day or so, but it really looks like it needs a good solid dose of dispute resolution, not more administrative intervention. There is plenty of low-grade borderline edit warring and uncollaborative comments aimed more at baiting other editors or driving them off than at actually building consensus, but a Wikiquette thread or Request for comment would work better.

Unless someone breaks 3RR, makes an obvious (not borderline) personal attack, or completely stops discussing, this dispute appears likely to remain in the grey area around the edge of normal editing. About the only tool remaining in my toolbox is a lengthy full protection while the talkpage irons out a rewrite acceptable to most parties, preferably including one or more content requests for comment and active pursuit of additional input from the Economics WikiProject and elsewhere. Does anyone think that that route is worth pursuing? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lerner Google Talk at Nuclear fusion

Hi, I see you reverted my edit in the Nuclear Fusion article. I don't understand why remove Lerner's talk but not Bussard's talk, for example. He is not talking about plasma cosmology in that talk so I don't see why you should post a link to plasma cosmology article either. Caroliano (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that because Lerner still advocates ideas that most astrophysicists regard as vastly mistaken, we should not link to his ideas on plasma phenomena (see the Focus Fusion website, where the connection between his ideas on astrophysical plasma and plasma in a fusion chamber are made explicit). Misplaced Pages is inherently conservative, reporting various developments but not actually taking part in the discourse. Lerner is not wholly dismissed by the wider community, but while there is this level of debate we should stick to less questionable sources.

I watched Lerner's talk but not Bussard's; if you think the latter should be removed, use an informative edit summary and commit the edit. Google Tech Talks can make fine external links, but their suitability depends heavily on the reputation of the speaker for the material at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Small scale Plasma Focus devices seems to be very studied and accepted devices. The polemic seems to arise only when scalling up this theory to galactic and intergalactic dimensions, as in plasma cosmology. Now I see that Lerner talks about it quickly in his google talk, but don't explain it is plasma cosmology or anything. It is just an side note when talking about his plasma theory. It is true that Lerner is depending on some "new physics" for archieving net power in his device (the magnetic field effect mainly), but so is Bussard (annealing and non-thermalization under the conditions he hopes to achieve) and in less scale every other fusion experiment, as they are traveling by unknown waters.

In the start of the talk, Bussard gives an general introduction to Nuclear Fusion, while Lerner only really introduces pB11 fusion. He explains well the advantages, disvantages and big challenges of pB11 as fusion fuel. After that, both talks about their devices and experiments for most of the talk. Both explains briefly some of the competing nuclear fusion methods, with Learner focusing on the ones seeking aneutronic fusion like his. Both also talk about the possible impact of cheap fusion power in the world economy. I don't advocate the removal of Bussards talk. But I find Lerner's explanations better and less boring. ^^' Caroliano (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

mail

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazon00

All of this user's contribs seem to be reverted but they are never warned. As they are an SPA, is there a way of converting them to becoming a good editor?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like very much to become a good editor, so maybe you can explain why my recent post was reverted as it referenced a recent peer-reviewed and published study in Nutrition Journal that contradicts the claim that "When the entire scientific literature to date and putative health claims of açaí are assessed, experts concluded in 2011 that the fruit is more a phenomenon of Internet marketing than of scientific substance." The study I referenced is: Effects of Açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) berry preparation on metabolic parameters in a healthy overweight population: A pilot study, Nutrition Journal 10:45, 12 May 2011, doi=10.1186/1475-2891-10-45, http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/45. I believe this is a legitimate source of information, do you not? Amazon00 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You should read wp:MEDRS. We rely on high quality secondary sources to support medical assertions. Peer reviewed publications of systematic reviews are excellent examples. Primary publications such as you cited are only used in the most guarded fashion, if at all, and never to contradict better sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tips - will do some more reading. Amazon00 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar

I think its a shame you didn't give out 3RR blocks. Locking the article teaches no-one anything and doesn't allow anyone else to edit. How about you unlock it and tell them both to leave it alone for a week? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I mostly prefer locking to blocking everyone, but if the current state is interfering with development I will just change my messages to final warnings. Also, please let me know if the histmerge issue with that article is not really fixed - I just looked at the requests page but did not actually check. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not at all sure there ever were any histmerge issues there, perhaps there was some confusion.

But there is trouble brewing around that area, and tempers may be somewhat short. I was going to take this to WQA, but since you're here (so to speak): I redacted what I considered to be incivility from Al-A (in fact, that is the second time I do it) and Al-A restores it with the somewhat mistaken comment you're not an admin. But it does I think indicate that he isn't going to listen to reasoned discussion, only threats (to be brutal). You'll see I've tried to discuss it on his talk page, to no avail. And having checked, I now have confirmation from the insultee that he does care, so I'm disinclined to let it drop as water-under-the-bridge. So: any advice? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to warn for that, but saw that you had already asked Misconceptions2 for their opinion. Given the affirmative, I am going to redact it using my Magic Admin Powers™. With a mention that Magic Admin Powers do not exist, of course. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks to have been helpful. This isn't exactly the early stages of the dispute - it has been simmering for a while - but it might be the early stages of it getting nasty. Keeping things cool at this stage could help set the tone William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind if you ban us both for a week, so long as Al-A is also banned also. But i will avoid editing the article for a week. I hope that if Al-A does edit the article again he is banned, same for me.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That is great, thanks. Please do use the talkpage or some other way to reach some accommodation in the meantime. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to raise another concern, about him misusing twinkle. In the past the user has removed this Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad from many pages that i added it to. i added that template to the articles of Muhammad's companions who fought in battles mentioned in that template. User removed it using twinkle, and reverted about 20 of my edits. See his edits here from 13 April 19:51 to 13 April 20:01 (i even added that template to sub headings in the respective articles, which are named after the battles in the template, like here, e.g if the article had a sub heading called Battle of Khaybar, i added the template in that section, as that battle is in the template). Other users have also raised concerns about him misuing twinkle, See here . I want to know if he is right to remove the template from the pages i added it to. And also whether he was right to remove it from the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article, as that article is related to the Battle of Tabuk, which is listed as an expedition (so i think that is enough to justify adding the template, even if the article, Demolition of Masjid al Dirar is not considered by Al-A as an expedition, since it is at the least, strongly related to an expedition). Who is right? Please give your opinion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have honestly no idea whether it is right to have the template on those articles, as this area of history is a pretty good ways from my area of expertise. Behaviorally, I would recommend centralized discussion on the use of the template as a better solution than having go at back-and-forth editing across a number of articles. Perhaps the Islam or the Military History WikiProject would have advice? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, 2over0, but I strongly believe that I'm being misjudged here and I do not like the way my behaviour was equated with that of Misconception2, a user who was blocked for weeks for the very same behaviour and attitude: systematic bias and misrepresentation of sources, edit warring and refusal to use the talk page (update: actually he has a history of getting blocked for edit-warring in Islamic articles, he was also blocked indefinitely which was uplifted last February).

• You wrote on my wall that the TP should be used. If you look at the talk page of the related article, you will see that I've used the TP very often as opposed to Misconceptions2 who hardly ever replied to any of the issues I and other editors raised. In fact I'm the one who created the talk page raising serious issues over misrepresenting sources, WP:OR and pushing a POV, to which he responded by (1) repeatedly removing POV and OR tags I added (here, here, here), claiming that it was resolved when it wasn't and (2) accusing me of misleading readers and being an apologist (which btw is a common accusation towards anyone Misconceptions2 disagrees with as seen here), so that should explain my overreaction on the TP.

I suggest you just read the lede section of the Misconceptions2's version and compare it against the lede section of the corrected version that Misconceptions2 has repeatedly rejected and honestly tell me what do you think.

• As to the claim that I misused Twinkle when I removed the template from several articles. This is easily disproved by the fact that I did state my reasons on the TP of the template (again, the thing you've recommended on my TP), but he didn't seem to bother at all, so I see absolutely no justifited reason for raising this now.

• Is the event of Masjid al-Dirar an expedition or not ?

The Seerah literature uses the term ghazwah for any battle involving Muhammad, and the term sariyyah for expeditions which he ordered but was not take part of. The template lists the articles under the headers ghazwah and sariyyah, so I wrote on the talk page regarding Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar:

"None of the cited sources refers to the event (two men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch) as a campaign (whether it is a ghazwah or a sariyyah). For now, this is an OR by Misconceptions2 and I've removed it from the template until suitable references are provided".

He never provided any reference (to be fair, he did provide a single reference, but he misrepresented it) and still insists my rejection is the problem, not his OR.

• and finally regarding William. Now you're probably already wondering why would an editor with zero contributions to the disputed article would have that much concern, and why his account of the dispute did not mention the more important stuff: multiple removal of POV tags and lack of TP usage by Misconceptions2 ?

The answer is simple. He is seeking revenge for my reversal of his undiscussed deletion of the article on Avicennism, and the refusal of WQA admins to look into a request he raised against me, and my refusal to give him the apology he asked for on my TP after his WQA was ignored.

I also find it really ironic and perhaps hypocritical of someone to talk about incivility when that person accuses me of deception here.

So I strongly urge you to consider reviewing your warning and take the appropriate action given the above context which I hope I made clear. Thank you for your time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with what Al-A has said above. I won't pick over it all. But He is seeking revenge is odd (and not just because it confuses deletion with redirection). Why would I want revenge, when the article is redirected? ? As for the WQA: I think Al-A's failure to respond there, and his response to the recent problems, is troubling William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper?

Looking here.

I'm guessing 24.7.26.52 & 98.210.160.235 are socks. NickCT (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dang it, I just checked up on my recent blocks and autoblocks not two hours ago. They had to go and wait until I am fixing dinner to start up again. Semi-protected, go ahead and finish WP:RBI. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

When will those socks learn? Article reverted. Best, NickCT (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

From Darwin to Hitler

Hi 2over0,

I'm curious to know your reason behind reverting back the subject of the book to 'Intelligent Design' and genre to 'Religion'?

Thanks,

Jakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakersNI (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This kind of discussion should occur at the article talkpage, where everyone following the article will see it. Click on the Discussion tab at the top of any page, or enter Talk:From Darwin to Hitler in the search bar. Looking at the article again, I was confused - the book is from the Intelligent Design movement, but is not about it, so that subject= parameter would be incorrect. Welcome to editing Misplaced Pages, see you at the article talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sock block

Could you take a second to review this. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Block

Why I am blocked for 3 months for making 15 reverts over several days while nothing happens to the person reporting me and who, as I pointed out in the discussion, made 20 reverts and also displayed incivility many times? Miradre (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre made 10 edits at Guns, Germs, and Steel in March plus 7 edits in July, and 78 edits at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel over 7–11 July. The material added in March was removed; Miradre's July edits added the same material and more. The material was under a new heading "Race and intelligence" with "Main article: Race and intelligence". The new text inserted the R&I view that genetic factors make some "races" superior to others—that is, the article was being used as a coatrack to expand the R&I view within Misplaced Pages. While there is no policy prohibiting enthusiastic promotion of a view, the Arbitration case was held for a reason, and its sanctions were established for a reason. It is essential that such sanctions be enforced to avoid disruption resulting when SPA editors unduly promote their R&I views. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2/0, since the justification for the temp ban was under AE remedies, perhaps you might post a summary of the discussion from the 3RR board on the AE board for the AE admin regulars to see and be aware of, in addition to logging the sanction under the R&I case remedies. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Edjohnston already commented at AN3 and Miradre's editing has also been previously discussed at length, both at AE and during a request for clarification, no further summary is required beyond the logging (which links to the diff on Miradre's user talk page which in turn links to the AN3 discussion). The same applied when the topic ban of Captain Occam was extended to Ferahgo the Assassin. She was informed of the ban by NuclearWarfare. Like Miradre she wikilawyered about the possibility of a ban. The attempt to target other users (in this case Aprock) is also one of the common features of confirmed meatpuppets in this topic area. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)