Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 5 July 2013

Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - Jimmy Wales

Personal attacks

That reversion was not censorship and accusing me or anyone else of censorship in a normal content disagreement is a personal attack. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED to understand how we use the word. Fantasies about what historians think about the Maori don't deserve a blockquote, see WP:UNDUE. And they are fantasies, it's a fringe idea to think that the Maori brought anything from the Americas, and I can't imagine historians claiming the Maori brought horses when they know the first horses, in 1814, were a shock to the Maori. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a mixed bag here, so let's separate things out. Firstly, for any other visitors to my humble abode, this is what he's upset about:

• 16:41, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (22,898 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World: a blockquote is inappropriate for these fabrications, the Maori never saw horses before 1814 & are not credited with bringing anything from South America, etc)
• 16:19, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (24,005 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World: censorship is trying to prevent things like photos of vaginas, this should not have been replaced without discussion but it certainly needs qualifications)
• 15:16, 16 January 2012‎ Silent Key (23,997 bytes) (No - we don't do censorship here. You're free to add any qualifications you feel necessary.)
• 12:05, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (22,236 bytes) (not sure this is appropriate, unless we can word it to make it clear these are his unfounded claims (eg the Maori never saw horses before Marsden brought them from Australia in 1814))
• 11:37, 16 January 2012‎ Silent Key (23,997 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World)

Now his arguments:

Quote: "That reversion was not censorship"

• According to the rules given in WP:NOTCENSORED, yes it was.

Quote: "and accusing me or anyone else of censorship in a normal content disagreement is a personal attack."

• Then accusing me of being a fantasist is a personal attack. Your character is of no interest to me. Your action was censorship, so it was not "a normal content disagreement".

Quote: "Please read WP:NOTCENSORED to understand how we use the word."

• I understand perfectly well how Misplaced Pages uses the word, but your edit summary statement "censorship is trying to prevent things like photos of vaginas" is not an accurate definition at all. So it's best to read WP:NOTCENSORED yourself.

Quote: "Fantasies about what historians think about the Maori don't deserve a blockquote, see WP:UNDUE."

• It was precisely because of the WP:UNDUE policy that the Menzies block quote was necessary. It would be undue in an article on the Maoris, but the article is about Menzies and his opinions. At the time that you removed Menzies' block quote, the article already contained block quotes from Tan Ta Sen, president of the International Zheng He Society, historian Robert Finlay, a group of scholars and navigators including: Su Ming Yang of the United States, Jin Guo-Ping of Portugal, Philip Rivers of Malaysia, Malhão Pereira and Geoff Wade of Singapore. The views of numerous others were also represented. All of these were hostile to, or critics of, Menzies' theory, leaving readers in no doubt at all what the mainstream position is. The only person who didn't get to present his testimony (as opposed to one rhetorical question) was Menzies himself - the subject of the article. This made it impossible for readers of the article to assess first-hand what was actually being debunked. It's true that Wikipedians generally dislike crackpots, but they absolutely despise self-appointed thought-police restricting what they can read. Indeed, at the time of your revert, Misplaced Pages users were preparing for a 24-hour blackout to protest such suppression, so you'd be unlikely to get much support in arbitration.

Quote: "And they are fantasies, it's a fringe idea to think that the Maori brought anything from the Americas, and I can't imagine historians claiming the Maori brought horses when they know the first horses, in 1814, were a shock to the Maori."

• This statement merely proves my point: that your revert was motivated by hostility to an idea, not by a desire to improve an article or correct another editor's errors. And what you can or can't imagine is irrelevant - personal incredulity is not evidence. I am perfectly aware that this is fringe. The Menzies article already had tags and refutations, otherwise I would have added them. In my article on Hugh Harleston Jr., for example, I tagged it as pseudo from the very beginning. The horse thing was there purely because that's the 1421 extract Menzies himself showcases on his website. It could have said absolutely anything for all I care. Why he's chosen horses as opposed to, say, the peer-reviewed stuff on anomalous finds of Easter Island chicken bones, I simply can't say. But all this is between you and Menzies, so take it to his website forum. I didn't write Menzies' book. God alone knows why you're posting your views on Maori history on my page. Silent Key (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ViXra

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ViXra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of ViXra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ViXra is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ViXra until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nightmare Vacation

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Nightmare Vacation, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The page I created was an innocent redirect - Nightmare Vacation is just the UK title of Sleepaway Camp. The later vandalism was nothing to do with me and I knew nothing about it. Silent Key (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please do not violate WP:TALKNO as you did by posting insulting images of clowns at Talk:Cold fusion. The article talk page is only for discussion about article improvement. If you are getting that frustrated with the process then feel free to take your concerns to WP:DRN or another higher forum. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No clowns allowed? You could've fooled the shit out of me. Silent Key (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed to split the cold fusion article and welcome your opinion. It seems to me we've made it much to complicated. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior is that of a troll running people off the article RWolfie. I'm just asking the editor to come back. You should go clown elsewhere. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

Your recent editing history at Energy Catalyzer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  ItsZippy 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

1. Block violates WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE

2. No violation of WP:3RR on my part

3. Complainant User:AndyTheGrump lied in order to present my first (ever) edit of the article as a revert in an attempt to achieve WP:3RR ruling (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Silent_Key_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_24_hours.29)

4. Full compliance with WP:BRD - exhaustive discussion by others (Talk:Energy Catalyzer#Does anybody know if this Steve Featherstone is a scientist or not.3F & Talk:Energy Catalyzer#Cherry picking from Steve Featherstone: wrong wrong wrong) - further discussion was against WP:DFTT

5. Block violates WP:AGF as did complainant User:AndyTheGrump in assuming bad faith based on a WP:GNOME edit by a newcomer to the article giving no indication of any intention to continue reverting repeatedly.

Silent Key (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Right, so the 3RR vio comes from

1. , 13:26, 20 June 2013
2. , 13:37, 20 June 2013
3. , 13:44, 20 June 2013
4. , 13:48, 20 June 2013

You were pointed towards WP:BRD by several users; You will want to follow this as soon as you are unblocked, as consensus is clear on the talk page that more reliable sources are needed for the change. Also, multiple users reverted your edits, so it isn't just WP:IDONTLIKEIT by one user. Also, please WP:AGF yourself. Mdann52 (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Right, so the 3RR vio comes from..."

- There was no 3RR vio.:

" ...the first diff isn't technically a revert; it was, AFAICT, the first time that Silent Key (or anyone else) made or even suggested making that particular group of changes to the article...this isn't – quite – a bright-line four-revert violation of 3RR.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC) "

" Though not technically a 3RR violation... ItsZippy 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC) "

"You were pointed towards WP:BRD by several users"

- I was pointed towards WP:BRD by ONE user:

(cur | prev) 12:50, 20 June 2013‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)(41,564 bytes) (-39)‎(Undid revision 560744217 by Silent Key (talk) rv. edit-warring attempt to remove criticism from lede) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:48, 20 June 2013‎ Silent Key (talk | contribs)‎(41,603 bytes) (+39)‎(Undid revision 560744050 by AndyTheGrump (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:46, 20 June 2013‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎(41,564 bytes) (-39)‎(Undid revision 560743890 by Silent Key (talk) Per WP:BRD you must discuss this on the talk page) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:44, 20 June 2013‎ Silent Key (talk | contribs)‎(41,603 bytes) (+39)‎(Undid revision 560743283 by AndyTheGrump (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:39, 20 June 2013‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎(41,564 bytes) (-39)‎(Undid revision 560742991 by Silent Key (talk) take to talk per WP:BRD please) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:37, 20 June 2013‎ Silent Key (talk | contribs)‎(41,603 bytes) (+39)‎(Undid revision 560742738 by Alexbrn (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:34, 20 June 2013‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎(41,564 bytes) (-39)‎(Undid revision 560742020 by Silent Key (talk) rv. arbitrary categorization) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:26, 20 June 2013‎ Silent Key (talk | contribs)‎(41,603 bytes) (+39)‎(Reactions: split into physicists & non-physicists) (undo)

Energy Catalyzer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please consider following WP:BRD, as has been repeatedly suggested before. Alexbrn 09:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I was surprised to see you continuing to edit war on Energy catalyzer so soon after being blocked for that very thing. I am blocking you for 36 hours for unrepentant edit warring. In view of the discussion above re the original block, please note that it is edit warring I'm blocking you for; not for breaching the three-revert rule, which you have not done. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC).

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

Request reason:

The WP:LIBEL policy states:

The goal of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory.

It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

In the lede of the Energy catalyzer article, there is a sentence which may fall foul of this policy:

Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."

At least two exhaustive threads on the relevant talk page have been devoted purely to complaints about this one sentence. The threads point out that the sentence is taken completely out of context (Featherstone gives a much more measured assessment), that there is no explanation to the reader of who Steve Featherstone is (an omission not made for any of the other names in the article), and that he turns out not to be scientifically qualified to make a judgement in any case.

E-cat inventor Andrea Rossi has already said that he plans legal action against Misplaced Pages for other libels ("Rossi vs. Misplaced Pages", E-catworld.com). In an attempt to mitigate some of the trouble, I have tried to place the word "journalist" in front of Steve Featherstone's name, which is what he is. Thus, any offense that Featherstone's comments may cause can be assessed in view of the fact that he is not a scientist. Note that two to three days ago, the User:Alexbrn / User:AndyTheGrump double act, that previously launched an edit war against me, did exactly the same thing against User:Bhny ( visible here), again on a bizarre point (disputing the easily verified death of the Energy catalyzer's co-developer Sergio Focardi), and again accusing the innocent party of edit warring. Silent Key (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

All this is irrelevant. You were edit warring, just like when you were blocked before, and as long as you keep insisting on edit warring rather than seeking consensus, you keep getting blocked. --jpgordon 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

(The new Notifications system alerted me to the fact I was mentioned here) As can be seen, I played no part in the talk page discussion regarding whether Focardi's death should be mentioned in the article. My only edit to the article concerning the matter was this one , where I removed the Bhny's initial edit marking Focardi as deceased with the edit summary "revert - we do not yet have conformation in WP:RS regarding the death of Focardi". This edit was made on strong WP:BLP policy grounds - we do not make assertions regarding deaths without sourcing, for obvious reasons. As it happens, Bhny was able to locate an appropriate source shortly after, at which point WP:BLP policy was satisfied. That Silent Key should think that this sequence of edits is some sort of evidence that I am colluding with User:Alexbrn in some sort of 'double act' is frankly bizarre.

As for Silent Key's comments regarding libel, I will merely point out that Rossi has a habit of making vague threats of legal action, as do many other individuals who feel wronged by Misplaced Pages. It is not Misplaced Pages policy to rewrite articles on the basis of such threats - rather, all articles are expected to comply with the same standards regarding sourcing etc. To do otherwise would be a dissservice to our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The detail about Focardi's death centred on the manner with which it was mentioned; the solution was to insert it using the conventions of MOS:DOB – an edit I made myself (and, since this issue did not involve Silent Key, I am not sure why it's being raised). As to whether Featherstone is labelled a "journalist", a discussion is taking place on the Talk page, as it should; we should not attempt to proceed by edit warring. The notion of an alliance between me and AndyTheGrump is ... rum. Alexbrn 15:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Birds of a Featherstone

My blocker (User:Bishonen) implicitly brought up User:AndyTheGrump and User:Alexbrn by referring to my previous block. By "double act" I do not mean wp:cabal or wp:sock but simply their previous joint reverting and the fact that each has come to the defense of a pointless objection raised by the other (Featherstone occupation, then Focardi death). User:AndyTheGrump points out that I've wrongly directed the admin to the talk page instead of the article history showing his edit; correct but totally beside the point as the admin would obviously go to the history himself anyway. The crux of the matter is that while they are indignant over perceived misrepresentations of themselves, they still do not extend that courtesy to Andrea Rossi. Silent Key (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'crux of the matter' is that you seem to think that me reverting an unsourced statement regarding Forcadi's death is evidence for some sort of collusion, while anyone with an ounce of sense can see that it was a simple matter of ensuring that WP:BLP policy was adhered to. Incidentally, regarding Featherstone, I think I've made clear in the past that I'd prefer not using him as a source where better-qualified sources (i.e. Bardi) are available. That however doesn't equate to accepting your attempts to edit-war material clearly intended to discredit him into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, AndyTheGrump's reversion was based on core WP policy; in contrast I was fussing around about comparatively minor matters of style and weight. This talk of our supposed 'indignance' (bafflement more like, at least for me) is just more kicking-up of sand. The central issue is that you were edit warring - continually reverting to your preferred version of the text - without attempting to discuss disputed edits on the Talk page. Alexbrn 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try one more time:

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons:

"Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

WITHOUT. WAITING. FOR. DISCUSSION. Silent Key (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this even relevant? You weren't trying to remove the text! You have raised this issue on Talk and the consensus has been that this material is not poorly-sourced or unsourced ... it's not even contentious. Alexbrn 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning: Energy Catalyzer is under Arbitration Committee general sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to conduct yourself as you have at Energy Catalyzer, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Bishonen | talk 12:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

1. Cite error: The named reference Wales_2006-05-16_WikiEN-l was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box Andrea Rossi's Black box infinite energy: a lone Italian inventor says he has built a machine that can power the world. Could the answer to humanity's energy troubles be so simple?
3. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.]