So I added 3 external links on the "tulpa" page. Then you delete them THE SAME DAY. You claim this is based in science but the entire concept of a tulpa is not based in science. Same thing goes for elves. Would you also delete references to elves on the "elf" page? Why do that on the tulpa page???

Put back the links, dude. You have no reason other than to exercise your ego, it seems. How lame can you be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.19.183 ( talk • contribs)

I do not claim that removing the links was based on science. I claim that the links are inappropriate, under Wikipedia:Notability and related policies. This they most certainly are. The second link was probably also a violation of WP:ADVERT. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And you may wish to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Michaelbusch 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey... hope you have a good break. Don't go for too long... the science pages need your watchful eye! Cheers... -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Re your revert at Tobiads, please note that the Jewish Encyclopedia is public domain. Charles Matthews 08:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We aren't supposed to include primary sources in any case. I see that the article has been fixed, however. Michaelbusch 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, in case you're back I hope you had a good break, i'm sure there is many an article wondering when you'll show up again; I myself just came back after two months and saw you'd disappeared for ages. Hope the vandals didn't get you down. I suspect vandal attraction is a sure sign you're doing something right. Anyway, beware the watchlist - after a long break it is a thing to make you groan. Worse still, the list of changes appears to be cut off after 30 days. aaargh! Be well, Deuar 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I've become somewhat disillusioned with editing Wikipedia. I've done far more editing than required to make almost all edits, vandalism, and debates routine. I now see editing as mostly politics and community service, and I think I've done my share of that as a Wikipedia user. I may come back, but right now other things have far more appeal. Michaelbusch 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I hear where you're coming from, after a few months the initial amazement becomes more muted. I'm at the point where if I want to contribute anything useful at all, I have to work out a routine way to ignore all the politics, whether wikipedia or real world. It's actually the real world politics that I find difficult to pass by, when someone is peddling bollocks in some random field not even close to one I am knowledgable in. "How can I just let that go on misleading people", a little voice says, and more time than I expected is wasted for probably little real gain. (again) Deuar 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects. Thank you. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Within 2 min of posting the article you have it marked for speedy deletion on the basis it is an advertisement. I respectfully submit that this article is related to the OOXML main article but that it needs it's own page since the OOXML article has grown too lengthy. This is a current event that is hotly disputed and needs coverage. Jonathan888 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

But will anyone care about this in two months? A year? Does one vote on a particular aspect of Microsoft software constitute WP:N? I submit that this is undue weight. WP:ADVERT might not be the best tag, I concede. Michaelbusch 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, I respectfully submit that if this measure passes in February 2008 almost everyone will care. Under the reasoning you just gave the OOXML page is spam and should be speedily deleted. Jonathan888 (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone will care who voted for and who voted against, or any of the details of the vote. The main page itself is notable, but in need of drastic revision. I have placed the tag. The Admins can now decide. Michaelbusch 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for changing the tag and for discussing this. Jonathan888 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Isn't it a bit ironic that Anti-gravity is suffering from undue weight? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It seemed apt in more ways than one. Michaelbusch 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I performed an undo on your deletion of Schulz Pillgram's reference. He stated a German engineer by name of Lewetzow invented a device made by the Russians that was propelled in the manner described in the Interavia article. That article featured Thomas Townsend Brown's saucer shaped device. The lofting cake within the vehicle was a modular gravitator and the exterior juxtaposed rim used the ionic wind principle. If Pillgram is correct, Lewetzow would represent German attempts to use parallel plate capacitors for propulsion. Tcisco 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The entire article is in need of revision. I just removed the uppermost layer. Michaelbusch 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting a vandal edit on my talkpage. Davnel03 08:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you've deleted the two links to Vertex and Epimetheus societies that I've put on the High IQ societies page. Can you direct me as to where should I put those links in your opinion. There's no ground for withholding links to societies' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevanMD ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I was the fellow who did the edits you reverted on Zero Point Energy. I did these edits to clarify some points which are confusing to many people who are not involved in Casimir effect calculations.

I wanted to explain myself because I hope that something will be added to the page. The Casimir effect measures the change in vaccuum energy when different boundary conditions are altered. The whole confusion is that the vaccuum energy can be defined to be zero in one particular situation, since only energy differences are meaningful. This effect suggests that the vaccuum has usable energy to many people, and the current article continues to suggest that.

The Casimir effect is a correlation in dipole moment fluctuations in microscopic objects which can be calculated as the difference in quantum mechanical field energy between nearby states. This is what everyone agrees is true, and this is what is calculated and measured. The current article is expressing the views of a fringe group that believes that the Casimir force reveals that the vaccuum has usable energy.

I hope that some compromise will be put up, because the current article is grossly misleading.

Likebox 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not read this from the current version, and thought that your version would lead to that misunderstanding. Michaelbusch 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why do you keep messing with my talk page? Please stop. Youngberry 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Then don't remove warning messages. Michaelbusch 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, users are permitted to remove warning messages; doing so is considered an acknowledgement that they have read the messages. See the talk page guidelines for confirmation. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

For fuck sake! Does a person even have a chance to write an article before you tag it for deletion? This is beyond overzealous! Peter G Werner 06:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I prefer to think of it as the Wiki having a strong immune system. Michaelbusch 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That's nice. Unless I have some reason to believe you're not acting as a rouge editor, I'm going to remove the speedy deletion tag. Peter G Werner 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

No. You're going to follow policy and try to demonstrate notability first. Michaelbusch 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Who are you to make rude demands on other editors? In any event, the article is on a notable American artist who's been the subject of articles in Los Angeles Times, Jane, and Australian Vogue. If you still are going to challenge this, I'm going to change it from a speedy delete to an AfD and let other editors judge decide on this. Peter G Werner 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This isn't a demand, it is merely a statement of policy, which quite clearly states that you should not remove speedy tags from articles you've created. Put the above and whatever else you have on the article's talk page, put it in the article, and then let the Admins decide. Michaelbusch 07:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help in reverting the vandalism to my Userpage! I never thought to look at it before but today wasn't the first time. I am grateful for you and the others who keep an eye out for this sort of thing, and thanks for the userbox! OfficeGirl 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Who are you???? I think so: DIREKTOR is a troll!!!! Where, when, how, why I vandalized???? user:PIO, 11 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.89.104 ( talk) 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, Michaelbusch.
I've seen the messages [1], [2], [3] you've posted on the page of user:PIO.
Have you started an RfCU for his case?
Do you have some more material about his unallowed behaviour?
He started giving his statements (and heavy accusations!) on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia, but, the others don't know much about him.
We cannot allow to vandals to use such serious places like Request for Arbitration as their playgrounds. So, if you've collected some evidence about his behaviour (sockpuppetteering, 3RR), can you post that on my talkpage?
Sincerely, Kubura 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Michael. You've helped a lot.
BTW, I know about DIREKTOR's temper, I disagree with his approach to problems in many things. I've sometimes thought that he's somebody's strawpuppet.
However, we need to disguise that troll PIO.
I think he has something with "user LEO".
See "LEO's" edit and IP on the RfARB/Dalmatia [4]. IP is 151.33.90.194.
Special:Contributions/151.33.90.194. Kubura 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Major restoration executed via Undo command. None of the references cited in the article had been disputed. Citations were for technical papers, dissertations, thesis, peer reviewed journals, reputable newspapers, and recognized aerospace magazines. None of the articles between the fifties and seventies had generated retractions. Tcisco 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Material removed per undue weight. Blanket undo is insufficient. Please defend any restoration on the article's talk page. Michaelbusch 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You are approaching a three revert violation on the Anti-gravity page

Please feel free to delete this warning. I just want to make sure you see it. I understand your position; but an edit war is not the way to fix it. I have given the same warning to Tcisco. You are going to have to come and explain your perspective in the talk page. Don't try to carry on a debate in edit comments; that is not what they are for. I have made a start to try and sort out what changes are being proposed in the talk page. If the edit warring continues, then a block is likely to be applied; just for the sake of getting things to calm down. — Duae Quartunciae ( talk · cont) 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have seen, and heard, and followed your advice before receiving it. Michaelbusch 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The more I look at your edits to Gold standard, the more I like them. That's not to say I don't have some quibbles, but, none worth mentioning so far. They were clearly a lot of work. Please award yourself your choice of a barnstar on my behalf. ← Ben^B4 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you!

User:PIO has lately been trying to make me look like a lone "POV warrior" with the involved Admin, Riana ( talk), and on the Istrian exodus talkpage. He has claimed there are a "dozen" editors trying desperately to stop my wild edits. I would be grateful if anyone were to show Riana (the involved Admin) that I'm not that much of a " lunatic" he makes me out to be. DIREKTOR 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, there is certainly evidence PIO has been running a sockpuppet network and that the majority of the dozen he claims are in fact merely him editing by IP. That is enough for a shut-down. Michaelbusch 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I fear he may have "beaten the system" with his sockpuppets. I hope I'm proven wrong... DIREKTOR 18:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why do you want this article deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Cherami

Supercool Dude 17:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Notability concerns. Satisfy the Admins of this on the article's talk page.

User:PIO (and his IP army) has announced ( here) that he is going to spread the edit-war to another article: Foibe massacres. I have once more invited him to discuss, but that's a desperate plea. Since he does not show any intention of stopping his "activities", I hope you may support me in trying to get him repremanded, not only for disruption, obviously, but also for sockpuppeteering, personal attacks and persistant vandalism. DIREKTOR 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The town is spelled in those different ways..thats why i redirected the names to that one...I misspelled it first so i had to do it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuuuVeee ( talk • contribs) .

I find no references to the alternative spellings, and having so many strains credibility. Do you have citations for that? Michaelbusch 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

References from where... imagine something else spelled like that..thats the name of the town.. but if it isnt allowed then ill change the name of the original one i chose —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuuuVeee ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but this is Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe redirects from misspellings are allowed. I don't think you need references. It's just ways that someone might type it in.

You've marked them with a template stating that they are redirects to a nonexistent page, but they are not. The page exists. -- 132.156.40.108 23:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but ten such seems excess, and I don't think anyone would mis-spell it some of those ways. I flagged it as nonexistent page, because they were nonexistent at the time (the page was mislabeled). I've left the tags because I think they should be removed anyway. Michaelbusch 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

How would you know how people would mis-spell it? Do you know the pronouncement? Didnt think so... ( JuuuVeee 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)) reply

My pronunciation of Arabic isn't strong, but I don't think that many would forget the leading 'Al'. Michaelbusch 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I wasn't given enough time. The speedy delete procedure was not followed. No need to be over zealous. Benefit fo the doubt required for a short period. As is stated in the speedy delete procedure. I did put the hangon tag there! Paul Beardsell 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I dont think many would spell"Al" on this specifik town. but yeah why not maybe i should redirect more names... ( JuuuVeee 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)) reply

I agree that my inclusion of the link regarding Fahrenheit temperature measurement was weak. You have impressive credentials as a guardian of Wikipedia standards, and I would certainly not argue with you in this case.

Out of mild interest, I searched to find good resources on the internet regarding the history of Fahrenheit and pretty much failed. I have tried to support the few contributions I have make to Wikipedia with strong references. Most online resources regarding Fahrenheit are very weak, and I found a number of references to articles which had to be purchased. Admittedly, I devoted only limited time to the search. The article I found and added cites works by an author, of some distinction, who wrote about Fahrenheit, so I figured if anyone wanted to do further study they could attempt to find those works. I've said all this only to explain myself (so perhaps you won't think I'm overly silly or careless), not to make a case for reverting.

Thanks for your time. Saraalan 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm pleased that you haven't objected to my more recent reference. Saraalan 02:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm not sure I understand. You're policing this article, and you twice delete a minor reference only because you don't think it adds anything, but you leave a false statement about Jamaica using Fahrenheit a week after I added a comment on the talk-page stating that I had looked into the claim and found Jamaica uses Celsius. Stupid me only now noticed it, and I deleted it -- although first I tracked down the website of the Jamaica Meteorological Service to be sure. Saraalan 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I missed that. Thanks for catching it. Michaelbusch 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize for appearing frustrated. As I've done more, especially working on one particular article (Cyprus), I've just been surprised by the lack of reponse when I've made comments or asked questions. Anyway, thanks. Saraalan 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Improper usernames should be reported to WP:UAA, not WP:AIV. FastLizard4 ( Talk• Links• Sign) 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry for adding the block template to the User:Rws killer page. Am I going to get banned from editing??? styrofoam1994 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Michael, I suggest you read your own guidelines if you are so clever and can quote sentence and verse - brush up "On assuming good faith" BadCop666 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you strain that. I'm sorely tempted to invoke Wikipedia:Don't be dense. Michaelbusch 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for monitoring new articles and submitting candidates for speedy deletion, as you did to the article I recently created, Touch of Death. The article is indeed very short and lacking context, as you suggested. I only wanted the article to exist, as I feel it is a missing topic in Wikipedia. It is closely related with the article Dim Mak, but I think Dim Mak is more of a subset of Touch of Death. I may have been naive in assuming that simply creating the article would be enough for its continued existence, and if it is deleted in the end I may submit a much better prepared Touch of Death article sometime later. James Lednik 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It has been kept, but flagged for lack of references. Michaelbusch 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

In commenting a recent edit you say "edits are unacceptable. TMLutas, have you not paid attention to talk?" This can be taken several ways so I thought I'd ask for a clarification, what are you trying to say with this? TMLutas 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That no other editors have supported your edits, and several disapproved of them, so unilaterally adding them to the article is unacceptable ( WP:CONSENSUS). I could debunk your statements re. Mars climate, on grounds of basic physics and certain aspects of planetary science I have knowledge of, but based on your edit history, you are unlikely to accept my explanations, so I will simply enforce policy. Michaelbusch 03:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

In other words, you could give actual reasons but don't feel like it so that's ok and will continue arbitrarily editing because you know better and have super secret knowledge that it's too much work to bother writing up. Now there's a sustainable principle that Wikipedia can work off of. And "based on my edit history" is completely besides the point. Other people read these things and even if I were the know nothing idiot you seem to take me for, your audience would not be me, but the many lurkers who don't feel up to knocking heads but would benefit from the explanation.

Some of the edits you reversed were entirely new material, not seen in the article before. It's absurd to label it all against consensus. I don't expect all my edits to get in. I do expect that where they are rejected, I get more than an insulting handwave that doesn't even apply to all the materials. Why my cosmetic edit on clathrate hydrates was reversed simply puzzles me. That sort of thing smacks of editing the person, not the actual material contribution. I'm reasonably certain that is not within the rules. TMLutas 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

No. I've given the reasons before, and lost patience. This is nothing personal. Michaelbusch 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I am an individual with my own faults and merits, not some unfeeling psychological prop to stand in for past frustrating conversations. All that editing in that sandbox was, to a large extent, an attempt at *demonstrating* good faith by not being aggressive. I know that there are louts around on my side of the argument and thought I'd make an extra effort because I don't want this to get reflexively nasty. Nobody took me up on that "take it to a higher level" initiative so I think I'm well within my rights to insist that I qualify for the assumption of good faith that wikipedia puts in as policy for everybody. I put the Plaut quote in again. RA left it in but took out a bit of basic summarization of available evidence. I left his quote in but shifted it to be one more theory among the causations. I let that (the trend observation) go and am asking in talk whether there's any actual evidence that Mars might be cooling. That's reasonable editing between people who don't fundamentally agree on a lot. It improves the article and doesn't lead to a lot of hard feelings. I can go forward on that basis all day long. Can you? TMLutas 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The photo link I put in and you pulled out is put up by the guys who administer the Hubble Telescope. They claim that the 10 mile (not km, I was mistaken) resolution photo was the best one ever from earth orbit. I think it's understandable why I trust their word over yours regarding terrestrial/orbital scope resolutions. Now you might be right but slapping me down over this doesn't fix much. You might better send a message to the photo caption people. TMLutas 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Mars orbit, not Earth orbit, is what I refer to. Hubble is the best near Earth, but anything near Earth can't compete with MRO's resolution. Michaelbusch 19:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The fundamental question is what should go in the article Climate of Mars. The next question is how each point should be presented. I don't want to be arguing the first issue while you're arguing the second. That would be spectacularly unproductive.

Hubble is pulled in as an example of a terrestrial instrument that is providing useful martian climate data. Resolution doesn't matter for that. If terrestrial and earth orbiting instruments are providing useful data, somehow they should be included on the section of real life data sources. The details are up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. I believe it was you that pulled the hubble reference entirely. Was that because of your disagreement on resolution or the entire idea that earth orbit/terrestrial instruments might provide *any* useful data whatsoever? TMLutas 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't know i was vandalizing. Sorry DragonDance 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have just started working on this page- please can you remove the speedy delete. The reference to coloplast was inadvertent. I suspect you don't know about the subject matter so misread the article. It is an operation like a pacemaker or appendectomy.

Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I know of this procedure, but as it was written it read like an advertisement instead of a description of a medical technique. Fortunately, it was edited down and tagged for expansion. I was in a hurry and couldn't do the overhaul. Michaelbusch 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Michael, it seems you issued warning knowing half the truth. Now that all the vandalism done by Sukanta has been reversed, I cannot show you what he had done. But he had started all possible malpractices and personal attacks, being from an anti-group of fundamentalists. I had repeatedly told him to stop vandalizing and making personal attacks. Rather I had tried to make him understand what Wikipedia is. He seems to be a fanatic, who would not understand which is the right place to do things. Your message to me was not justified.-- Pinaki ghosh 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The warning was per WP:COI and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You must learn caution when it comes to Prabir's article. Michaelbusch 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I replied here. Thanks. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Accepted TMLutas 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you explain this revert? Your edit summary makes no sense. --- RockMFR 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That was the day Mike and company announced the discovery. The actual discovery date is unknown, and may not be definable: Mike found the object in his pipeline (first possible date), conducted follow-up observations (second possible date), announced it (third). Michaelbusch 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Huh? No, the date was the date that they said they discovered the planet. It's even sourced in the article. It's not new information. --- RockMFR 22:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, but I'm just noting that the true meaning of that date is uncertain. Michaelbusch 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Michaelbusch: Yes... I know... wikipedia is not a place of "personal attack". But is it a place for self-promotion? If it is identified, someone is abusing wikipedia what sould a wikipedian do? He/she should be silent? Certainly this should not be the philosophy of a wikipedian, if he/she is really interested to enrich this online encyclopedia. I don't know whether you are from Kolkata or not, but I am from Kolkata and know this Prabir Ghosh very well. He is a fake doctor. A number of allegations raised against him. And this Prabir and company are using this wikipedia to promote himself. The page on Prabir Ghosh tells many things which are false. Yes, you maynot but I know this. I am giving a single example. A TV channel (Kolkata TV) from India broadcasted on 11 June, 2007 a news "Prabir Ghosh: World’s number one rationalist as per Wikipedia”. I was shocked to hear the news. Whats the true behind this? Prabir's son Pinaki had added his father's name on the top of the list of "Notable Rationalists" ( Rationalist movement) and misled the channel to broadcast the above news. Even today they are maintaining a site claiming the same. To check, you may click here [5]. Mr. Michaelbusch, what does it show?

You claimed, I did "personal attack"s against someone. Can you give me a single instance, which can really show I have done personal attack against Ghosh? Did I through any harsh word to Ghosh and his company? I would like to know. I think you are matured enough to distinguish what is a personal attack and what is an argument. Michaelbusch, you are doing some mistakes, please read again the whole discussion carefully. -- Sukanta Das 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Flaming is strongly discouraged, and yes, you have become very vocal in your exchanges with Pinaki Ghosh. Now, Pinaki has a serious conflict of interest with the Prabir Ghosh article, and the article must be guarded against this, but your postings to Talk:Prabir Ghosh are lengthly and at times seem designed to provoke Pinaki. That is a personal attack. That Pinaki is flaming more than you is not a justification, although I'm going to be recommending him for a short block. Michaelbusch 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You cannot remove valid information from a reliable source written in NPOV simply because you believe that Pearlman has been "damned enough". If the information was improperly referenced or not written in NPOV then it could be edited. I consider removal for invalid reasons such as this vandalism and I take it very seriously. You may consider this a warning.

Also, I would add that the information you improperly removed, which I have restored goes directly to support notability because it shows the significance of the controversy. Per Wikipedia, once notability has been established, primary sources are acceptable as long as they are reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 ( talk) 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree to your revert, but please 192.223.243.6, no use for being this offensive. Michael, the real damnation for Lou lies not within him successfully ripping of musicians or models, or cheating on banks or rich investors. Being that cunning may speak to ones advantage in jail. Ruining elderly people, and especially pedophelia definitely does not at all. Regards, -- SooperJoo 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate this, but a full listing of all of Pearlman's crimes is apparently so lengthly that it risks running over Wikipedia:Undue weight. Hence my concern. Michaelbusch 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Undue weight which states that, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The material that you remeoved was reliable, well-cited information that further established the significance of the scandal. I believe that running the largest modeling scam New york has ever seen and running perhaps the largest Ponzi scheme in world history are unique in their prominence. If there are reliable sources which have conflicting views they should be cited and represented appropriately, but I haven't found any.

Additionally Undue weight guidelines state that articles, "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Again, stealing half a billion dollars and bilking 150,000 would-be models out of $2000 each are pretty significant acts.

Further NPOV states that, "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it," as long as the statements are correct and can be verified. This was done in the materials that you deleted.

I apologize if my tone is confrontational, but I have had a lot of my work vandalized recently and I am quite sensitive to what I feel are inappropriate deletions. I would ask that you edit with a slightly lighter hand and really consider the policies you are quoting. I am working very hard to present Wiki-quality information written with NPOV.

Wikipedia:Etiquette suggests steps you should take when you believe something is not written in NPOV:

1. Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.

2. If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)

3. If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 ( talk) 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Again: sign your posts. All it takes is four tildes: ~~~~. I have read the policies. Under Wikipedia:Etiquette, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Michaelbusch 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. You persuade me to break my break. Michaelbusch 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I must recuse myself from this case. I find Martinphi abrasive and dealing with him would not be pleasant for me. Michaelbusch 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

We all have our own style of editing. With all due respect, you are not an administrator. So how about I edit my way and you edit yours. Sincerely, BWAHHAHA! 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I can't accept that. I have volunteered to remove inappropriate content, because there is too much for the admins to deal with. So: follow the rules of the Wiki, or accept the consequences. Michaelbusch 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The True/False Film Festival page I created was not yet a minute old when I see a note saying "clean it up." I acknowledge that it is not a very substantial article yet, but how about starting with a friendly "hey thanks for going to the trouble of creating this article about a notable film festival in Missouri" before telling me it sucks. yours, maxsch 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That is not what the cleanup tag means. It means that the article is in need of work, and notify other editors to this fact. It is intended to speed up editing. If I have given offense, I apologize. Michaelbusch 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean, and it's true, it could use some work. Sorry for the defensive reflex reaction. maxsch 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

db-spam? On a description of a mathetical/modelling equation? What? As I think you're it was error, I removed the speedy tag. -- Blowdart | ^talk 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I notice you've been getting a lot of userpage vandalism. You might like this userbox. Michaelbusch 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC): reply

No thanks; it violates WP:DENY as evidenced by this edit. — Disavian ( ^talk/ _contribs) 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been reported for violating 3RR. Harry Mudd 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's interesting, considering that I edited James Randi exactly once in the past three months. Michaelbusch 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Harry Mudd has now been warned for making inappropriate 3RR reports. Michaelbusch 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply