![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Hi, Guy. Please see my reply at Talk:35_mm_film#so-called_.22Souveneirng.22. jhawkinson ( talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Guy. I think your revision to the lead satisfied my concerns. It's much better than the sentence that was replaced. Thanks much. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and happy New Year! Just one quick thing - in an otherwise fair edit, you used rollback in a case where an explanation of the action was probably due. Your rationale on the TfD was good, but please keep in mind that rollbacks are like slaps in the face when used against established editors - in this case it would have been prudent to use the non-admin undo function instead so that you could leave a summary, especially given that you !voted in the TfD in a manner opposing the user you reverted.
See ye not, Courtesy
Is the true Alchemy,
Turning to gold all it touches and tries?
Respectfully yours, Nihiltres{ t. l} 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you have consensus from us all at cold fusion to keep editing the article after it was protected? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."
While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
It doesn't seem fair for an admin to (1) protect a page he had been editing and (2) keep editing that page. Unless you were asked by a consensus of other contributors to make a specific change. It seems rather that you were taking part in a revert war, and that one of your reversions was part of the reason Doc Glasgow protected the page.
Please self-revert, to show your good faith. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, JzG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am notifying you per due process that your protection of the Condensed matter nuclear science page represents a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:
Please correct this and avoid doing it again in the future. Thank you. Kevin Baas talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear about your father, Guy. Best wishes in the New Year. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize you had a family member in hospital. I'm happy to withdraw the ANI and tickle you with a large wet trout instead. Peace? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments on User talk:Nrswanson. I'm getting past the need to see this editor banned, but I doubt I have the skills to encourage this editor to contribute less disruptively. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a formal statement as to under what circumstances you would block Giovanni for reverting again - otherwise he won't change his behaviour. Also would you revert his reversion? He might see a block as being worth getting the page the way he wants it. John Smith's ( talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see this. [3]
You've taken a look at the article and were helpful in taking care of Karmaisking. Now, a group of people sympathetic to Karma is preventing any removal of his vandalism.
I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the arbitration case, if it comes to that, and just help out with the article, period. Zenwhat ( talk) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the trouble. Zenwhat ( talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guy, happy new year! You left a message on my talk page, [5] and just wanted to let you know I replied. Thanks. Buzybeez ( talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, to hear from you too "Something with a citation is not OR" ( [6]) was a bit disappointing. From a long-serving admin I'd have expected a deeper understanding of WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. I've still not heard any good explanation how those passages do not fall foul of that rule, something that still seems just plain obvious as daylight to me. Can you explain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[..] Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. [..]
Remember:
In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.
I don't know all the awards and barnstars, but I want to take a moment and compliment and thank you. Your tireless fighting for rational thinking and high standards on a number of controversial science articles, as well as hard work project wide. Although it seems that small cabals in walled gardens conspire against you at every turn, many recognize your labors. Further, I was significantly dismayed to see your family leveraged against you on AN/I, and send well-wishings on that matter. Thanks for what you do here, and keep it up. (if you can find a barnstar for this, feel free to substitute.) ThuranX ( talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would you revert somebody else's comment on my talk page? { Ben S. Nelson } 01:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
As you're usually pretty good at judging whether pseudoscience and psuedoreligion articles are potentially valid, or too far out on the WP:FRINGE, could you cast a second pair of eyes over Panetics? This looks to me like the Happy Shopper equivalent of Scientology (the organisation's website is just as ramblingly loopy as the article, if slightly better formatted), but it does have references of sorts and the organisation has some reasonably respectable looking names as members according to their site. I'm reluctant to AfD something if it is a notable movement and I'm just being sidetracked by the page's (undisputed) need for a severe cleanup; have you any thoughts on the matter? — iride scent 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
JzG, this sentence:
was attributed to you. I've lost my temper a couple times at QW:talk -- I'm relatively new but it's a horrendous quagmire -- but I purport to be invested neither in rubbishing nor defending. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could express myself as succinctly and as clearly as you do. Your comment exactly captures my thinking - except that I needed 250 words to do it in. *sigh* Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello JzG. You're the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Development and Management Association. I added a note to the AfD asking whether a participant can ask for a re-list (for another five days). User:Davolson has agreed to work with me to find more sources for the article. I'm hoping to remove everything that doesn't come from a reliable source, except trivial things like the founding date, and maybe a few internal things that aren't very important. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Several people are insisting that a fetus has gills and/or a tail, and they are saying that drawings of a human fetus will not be acceptable in this article unless the drawings show gills and a tail. In reply to them, I cited authoritative texts that say a human fetus has no gills, and has no tail, and I have provided links to six different medically-approved images of an 8-week fetus that show no gills and no tail. What would you suggest in a situation like this? If I simply reinsert the drawings that were there for months, they will probably be deleted again. If I start an RfC, it seems possible that more people will show up with demands that we show a fetal tail and/or fetal gills. Would you kindly consider this predicament, and suggest a way out of it? I would be very grateful. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You might care to get out your books once again and contribute to the discussion of F-flat ( AfD discussion). Uncle G ( talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted on ANI about the fringe nonsense regarding cannabis-related articles, such as on Chocolate Thai, and you responded.
User:Pundit, who is an administrator on Polish Wikipedia, has been making some pretty absurd arguments that the magazine, "Cannabis Culture" should be considered a reliable source. Finally, after I demonstrated about a dozen inaccuracies of the magazine, I think she subtly conceded that it's not a reliable source and said that her sources just prove the existence of a "popular colloquial term" -- A criticism I had made at the outset, that Chocolate Thai is just a "slang term" with no basis in botany and as such, should be deleted.
I'm amazed because despite the fact that she's an administrator (on Polish wikipedia, not this one), she seems to have a complete misunderstanding of what WP:RS and WP:FRINGE mean. Normally, I wouldn't pester an administrator like you with asking for a third opinion, but since she's an administrator herself, I thought it was warranted. After all, if she misunderstands Wikipedia policy on English Wikipedia, it could compromise her rulings on Polish Wikipedia.
Please see our discussion here: User_talk:Pundit#Chocolate_Thai. Zenwhat ( talk) 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guy, I'm requesting an overview of my behaviour in a dispute. You are the second sysop I've contacted about this. User:Blackworm accused me of making personal attacks last night. [9] I asked Jehochman to overview, he endorsed my response to Blackworm, saying Balckworm's comments were flame bait [10]. Blackworm he accused Wikiproject gender studies project of being "a collective of pro-feminist editors" [11]. The whole conversation is here
The issue is a rather sprawling dispute that Blackworm was having with User:Phyesalis which has spilled out on to at least 3 pages ( Circumcision, Female genital cutting, Reproductive rights). A day after Phyesalis joined Wikiproject gender studies he made the flame baiting comment to its talk page.
Although Jehochman reviewed my comments Blackworm is insisting on rehashing the issue again. [12] I asked Jehochman for a second look - but he advised that since he will be out to ask someone else. I'm sorry if this request is a burden.
User:Pigman, who was asked for an outside opinion on the Reproductive rights dispute by Phyesalis but on my advice, brought Blackworm to WP:AN for making tendentious assumptions of bad faith. See that here
I would also draw your attention to his posts to Talk:Fathers' rights movement although not involved in the reproductive rights issue this demonstrates a lack of AGF in dealing with me. He speculates that I am attempting to trade-off sources in a pov-push [13]. When I am not involved in that at all. I pointed out his narrow reading of WP:RS in regard to publications by experts and the use of relevant primary sources (see full discussion here). This user has an issue as can be seen by his latest revision of his userspace [14]. He says that men are being discriminated against on WP, in case you don't know, I am a man and I am probably the most active member of WP:GS and writer at Feminism. It's also worth mentioning the fact that out of the 5 users who responded to Blackworm on WT:GS, only one (futurebird) is female.
I would appreciate your objective view of my behaviour, especially in regard to his last post to my talk page. I'm not asking you to intervene, unless you feel compelled to, nor am I asking for your support. I am taking, what I consider a break from WP, at the moment due to this issue. I am preparing a report for ANI on this issue, its scope and its history here. I'd be much obliged if you could overview my behaviour in this issue.-- Cailil talk 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Idontknow610 (WANNA SIGN??) 10:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Guy, I've sent an email with a very rough draft of info you might find useful – dave souza, talk 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I Know you were involed in an earlier afd, any thoughts on this?-- Hu12 ( talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC).
Glad to see you are back from retirement! Kukini hablame aqui 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have requested nl:Aaron C. Donahue to be deleted. I sympathize with your plight, but I think we cannot allow other wikipedia's to excert this kind of influence, because it will make the kind of harassment you are apparently subjected to more effective. Let me just state for the record: JzG has no influence on what's going on on the dutch wikipedia. Good luck, JzG, I hope everything will work out for you. Regards. — Zanaq ( ?) 10:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of this user, and he was blocked. User:B in an amazing abuse of his admin powers, reversed the block. I would like to see profg permanently blocked based on this podcast. At about the last 5% of the episode, profg (aka Bill Greene) is asking his meatpuppets to attack Intelligent design and Evolution with edits that meet his POV. I think he needs to go permanently. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Guy. Your words meant a lot to me, particularly because they were unexpected. They will help me recover from this painful and troubling incident. Kind regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have blocked User:Vittala. You have declared him/her to be a sock-puppet of me. THIS IS NOT TRUE! On what evidence do you base this claim? Did you check IP addresses? Did you try to find out where his/her account originates? I declare quite definitely that Vittala is a different individual, not connected with me or any organization I am part of in any way. You had no right to create this block. Rosencomet ( talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you restored User talk:ScienceApologist in order to keep its history public, which is fair. I've blanked his talk page (the next best thing, per RTV); would it be appropriate to protect it, or not? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied to you over at the talk page. I hope you'll consider what I'm suggesting, that the real goal is to convince the community, based on sound editorial judgment. More to the point, I wonder what you think of unprotecting the page? Is it ready? Are you willing to help build a consensus regarding that source? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Still hope to meet up one day! Stephen B Streater ( talk) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know where the discussion is that you refer to in this edit summary? [18] I don't see it in the VPP archives. The issue is that that change is beginning to gum of the work on policy pages, as naive editors don't realize that bold edits are perfectly fine (the wiki process is a foundation principle, after all). I wanted to see what had been discussed there, but I am also tempted to restore the previous version. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Russell Bishop (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Russell Bishop (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Russell Bishop (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a response here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the matter still being dealt with by the WP:OFFICE, and as such, is it still a WP:OFFICE matter?? Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 10:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Policy proposal: WP:HOPE. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This request refers to a speedy deletion you finalized back in on June 15, 2007 ( Diana Schaub CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance). She is a full professor at Loyola College in Maryland and on the President's Council on Bioethics. At the very least, I think this should have been an AfD; at most, I think this article would survive an AfD. I don't know what the state of the article was at the time (I just followed a redlink, thinking I would create the page, and noticed it had been deleted), so it may have been that there was nothing significant asserted, but I do think an article on her meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability and verifiability. RJC Talk 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I can start talking like this. I'm getting tired of the POV-pushers. I wish I could get away with it in the way that you can. When I fight back against the POV-warriors of the world, they just run to one of the various Wiki-whining boards like this. What is your secret. I'm getting frustrated. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd get you something for the holidays, which I spotted in a shopping mall in downtown Tokyo. Hope you like strawberries. -- Calton | Talk 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)