User talk:Akuvar

Welcome!

Hello, Akuvar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

edit

Just edit the article, you'll notice when it gets deleted that at least 1 person doesn't think it's appropriate for wikipedia. My advise: do this with all edits you wish to make, unless you know it is a controversy within the wiki community. :) Ciao Mallerd (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the Talk:Cold Stone Creamery

I want to let you know that your posting on the Cold Stone Creamery page was inappropriate. Based on your edit history, you appear to be still fairly new and may not be familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would recommend that you take the time to read up about etiquette, the manual of style and other guidelines on WP before posting another message such as that one. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly warned you about your behavior and tried to explain what you were doing was wrong and why. I tried to explain what I did and why yet you continued to attack me. I am sorry to have to do this but your actions have forced me to respond. There is a report about your actions on the Admin noticeboard that you will need to respond to. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of what is appropriate and not appropriate are severely flawed. After I asked you repeatedly to fix errors you made on the site, you resorted to threats of "administrative action" rather than just owing up and fixing your mistakes. Well, you called in the dogs, your editor friends, and they seem to have told you all the things you were doing wrong, and oh, they didn't say that I did anything wrong at all. I see that you are a respected editor that contributes regularly to wikipedia, and I respect that. But this instance is clearly one of which too much power and standing got in the way of your judgement, and you chose not to listen to my criticism, but to try and squelch it. Sorry that didn't work for you. Akuvar (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cold Stone

Don't worry about it, really. :)

If you want to see the "report", you can view it here. Just to explain a little, there are certain "noticeboards" on Wikipedia that are meant to draw attention to different matters. The Administrators' Noticeboard is a place where editors can ask for help with matters that need assistance from administrators, although non-administrators (like you and me) often offer advice there as well. There are other noticeboards that are subsets of that noticeboard, such as one for edit wars and another for specific incidents. The one that Jeremy reported you to is the one for incidents. It's also the most active noticeboard, and reports that haven't been commented on for a day or two will get archived, which is why you didn't see the report when you checked it.

As to whether you have a "negative report" against you, sometimes incidents reported at that board can come back to haunt someone in the future, because people can link to the report to say "see what he did". But in your case, don't worry. Only two people commented at the report, and both of us said there was nothing wrong going on. If it made anyone look bad, it was possibly Jeremy who was basically told he was kicking up a lot of fuss about nothing. Essentially the problems occurring at that article are content disputes, when different people disagree about what should go in an article. As long as nobody is being disruptive (neither of you were), a discussion should occur to determine consensus about what should go in the article. If that consensus can't be easily reached, there are certain steps you can take for dispute resolution that might help. But alerting people at the Administators' Noticeboard isn't one of those steps.

So again, don't worry about it. It was a lot of fuss over something routine, neither of you have done anything wrong except that you have both been a little uncivil to each other, but again nothing serious. I hope that eases your mind a bit. -- Atama頭 08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users

That is one of the big discussions on the site, one possible solution is WP:Flagged revisions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article revision for Tom Van Flandern

Thomas C Van Flandern (June 26, 1940[1] – January 9, 2009) was an American astronomer, specializing in celestial mechanics, who was known as an outspoken proponent of unorthodox views on various topics. He graduated from Xavier University in 1962 and then attended Yale University on a scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO). In 1969, he received a PhD in Astronomy from Yale. Van Flandern worked at the USNO until 1982, having become the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office. Afterwards he worked as a consultant at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS), organized eclipse viewing tours, and promoted his views through his own company, Meta Research. He died in Sequim, Washington after a brief battle with cancer.

Van Flandern advocated inquiry into astronomy theories which he felt were consistent with the principles of science but were not otherwise supported because they conflicted with mainstream theories. He espoused 10 principles for assessing ideas and dubbed theories in compliance as “Deep Reality Physics". He published papers asserting his advocacy of LeSage gravity and that "the existence of faster-than-light interactions is compatible with causality if special relativity (SR) is replaced with Lorentz's interpretation (LR) of relativity." He believed that the speed of gravity was many times that of light. He later extended the idea of Faster-Than-Light propagation to Electrodynamic and Quantum Field Interactions in a paper coauthored with Jean-Pierre Vigier. Van Flandern was also known for his contention that certain anomalies seen on Mars are not of natural origin. He authored a book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated,[2] in which he challenged prevailing notions regarding dark matter, the big bang, and solar system formation, and advocated the theory (first proposed by Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded planet. He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the scientific community.

In 2009, asteroid 52266 was named in honor of Van Flandern, with the following citation given in Minor Planets Circulars, which regularly publishes names given to asteroids: "(52266) Van Flandern = 1986 AD Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas."

Re:Your Message on the Van Flandern Article

Forgive my being terse and perhaps even rude, but lack of time in dealing with multiple tasks pushes me to be straight in this issue.

I am watching the article and user:6324xxxx; I have read some of the relevant posts before engaging with him and sense COI from several users. Mikevf has clearly stated his COI. It would help me greatly to know the possible COI of other major editors of that article, though off course I may not request the answer.
As a mediator, I may not get involved into editing the article; I noted the change of the web-site link name as violating basic WP policies and reacted as such. As to the changes proposed above, I need more time to provide my opinion. Having some clue about my question above and the previous conflicts (such as the crucial objection points) will help. Again, forgive my abrupt message. If you reply, you can choose the page as you prefer, I'm watching this page. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your candor, again, whatever you can do is greatly appreciated. I am NOT a member of the subject's family, I knew the subject when he lived in Washington DC and when he was employed at the US Naval Observatory. I kept communications open with him after his retirement, I do not believe in several of his theories, have no opinion about most, and find some difficult to swallow. Does that give me a COI? I doubt it. I certainly have no interest in furthering or promoting the subjects beliefs. But I draw the line at someone calling him a krackpot as part of an ongoing edit process to make an article "better." Bottom line is that I respected the man for his intellect and his willingness to put himself in the line of fire for what he believed in. It made him a huge target in his field and is the reason why his life was notable to warrant a wiki article. You can probably gauge from the heated discussion that people were very opinionated about him - he left his mark on this world. I simply want to see a respectful article that mentions his accomplishments and theories and that they were controversial. I don't want to make him a martyr or argue if his theories were right or wrong. Akuvar (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late reply here, you had asked me about handling vandalism and I assume it's for this same article being discussed here (Tom Van Flandern). Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, seen here, and does not include any good faith edit, whether or not that edit was disruptive. For an editor who is actually giving justifications for the edits in edit summaries and discussing disputes on the talk page of the article, no matter how much you disagree with or object to the changes you cannot label such edits as vandalism. Labeling such edits as vandalism can even lead to sanctions against you, although I wouldn't expect that to happen unless you persist in doing it after being warned about it (so I wouldn't worry about it right now). I hope this helps (belatedly) answer your question, I think your only recourse for dealing with this issue is dispute resolution because the problem isn't anyone's conduct, but rather a disagreement about article content. -- Atama頭 23:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Sandbox for TVF talk page

I am placing numbers in parentheses throughout the above proposed article and providing reference material here for those items. I know this is different then how it is done in the primary article, but its the best I can do on a talk page.

(1) Sequim Gazette obituary

(2) biography and resume of Tom Van Flandern from Meta Research website

(3) "Physics has its Principals" http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

(4) "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say" Tom Van Flandern, Physics Letters A, Volume 250, Issues 1-3, 21 December 1998, Pages 1-11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1

(5) "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions" Tom Van Flandern and Jean-Pierre Vigier, Foundatins of Physics, Vol 32, No. 7, July 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016530625645

(6) Tom Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated, North Atlantic Books (Berkeley, CA 1993 and 1999) ISBN 978-1556432682

(7)

Akuvar,

Here are some citations that may be useful. I leave it to you and other editors to decide which (if any) to use and how to use them. I'm more than happy to do more leg work if there are specific citations you'd like to see. Thank you for your efforts in improving this article. -MikeVF

While USNO does not have histories of employment on their site these links clearly show Tom was there in 1964 and 1979

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/library/library-collections/publications-of-the-usno/washington-observations/?searchterm=van flandern

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/publications/sel-tech-rep/?searchterm=van flandern

Tom's Yale dissertation should support his PhD

A Discusion of 1950-1968 Occultations of Stars by the Moon - T Van Flandern

Yale University, 1969 PhD Thesis

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969PhDT.........3V

Tom's perspective on ideas derived from LaSage's theory of Gravity can be found in the chapter he contributed to the following book

Pushing Gravity New perspectives on Le Sage’s theory of gravitation ISBN 0-9683689-7-2

Since Tom's view on the speed of gravity are the most controversial aspect of his biography I've included the 4 relevant papers (all published in peer reviewed journals). Free abridged versions of Tom's articles are available on the Meta Research site, however linking to the free copies invokes objections about original research. If you use these I'd recommend using the doi links which should be sufficient for academics to find and access these papers. If desired I may be able to track down links to the debate between Tom and Carlip which was published in Asimov Magazine

The speed of gravity - What the experiments say" Tom Van Flandern

Volume 250, Issues 1-3, 21 December 1998, Pages 1-11

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1

Aberration and the speed of gravity - S. Carlip

Physics Letters A, Volume 267, Issues 2-3, 13 March 2000, Pages 81-87

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00101-8

Comment on "The speed of gravity" - Gerald E. Marsch and Charles Nissim-Sabat

Phyics Letters A, Volume 262, Issues 2-3, 1 November 1999, Pages 257-260

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00675-1

"Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions"

Foundatins of Physics: Vol 32, No. 7, July 2002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016530625645

Also the following Scientific American article and prize from the gravity foundation support the assertions that Tom was both well credentialed and respected prior to espousing non mainstream or "fringe" ideas.

Ironically he later concluded that the computed change in the rate of G was due to the unexpectedly large margin of error in data samples used for his analysis. In my opinion his unhesitating willingness acknowledge this was decidedly "uncrankish"

A Determination of the Rate of Change of G - T. Van Flandern 2nd prize essay submission to the gravity foundation

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/winners_year.html#74

Is gravity getting weaker - T. C. Van Flandern

Sci. Am., v.234, no 2, pp. 44-52, Feb 01 1976

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=4092479

I've included a link that outlines his view on the structures on Mars from Wired Magazine

Stuctures on Mars http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/mars.html?pg=2&topic=mars

Also Tom published predictions of meteor showers. These were based in part on assumptions derived from the EPH theory but I think that's only documented on the MR site

Predicting Leonid Outburts http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4k5712584539740/

Asteroid 52266 named after Tom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_planets:_52001%E2%80%9353000

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPNames.html

Mikevf (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific naming citation can be found by searching here for 'van flandern' or '65123' on the page and then following the second link. Unfortunately links directly to the citation don't seem to work.Mikevf (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tom Van Flandern

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Van Flandern. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of new BVF Article

With the success of his new book, and with my success in authoring a fair article for his father, Brian Van Flandern asked that I help create a wiki article on him. I started to do this off my talk page. I would have thought better of it at the time, but even with all my edits, I had never created a wiki page before and was looking for a topic to try it out. I am trying to remain as neutral as possible in the Tom Van Flandern article and I realized that creating an article about one of his boys may appear to be COI. Because of this, I'm going to cease my work on the Brian Van Flandern article (if he wishes to continue it, that is up to him). I am NOT Brian Van Flandern, nor am I a relation of Tom Van Flandern. The Tom Van Flandern article is too important to me to allow any appearance of COI to discredit my edits. Akuvar (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Tom Van Flandern. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. ▻Tim Shuba (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Us

Hi! Akuvar, let me review this edit.

You said: "(the "contact us" page of a company's website is not a valid reference for this information"

That is incorrect, Akuvar. "Contact us" is a perfect, justifiable place for this kind of information. The sole address listed by a "contact us" indicates where the company offices are.

I am immediately restoring the information and cites that you removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take your example and show you why it doesn't work - it's a common pitfall that people understandably make.
The United States Postal Service addresses do not necessarily correspond to the cities that the places are in. A place may have a "Houston, TX" address, for instance, but it is outside of the city limits and it is in an unincorporated area. USPS addresses do not say "unincorporated" in them.
Put the address in Yahoo Maps, which colors areas based on whether they are incorporated. Notice the absense of color. Compare it to a US Census Bureau map or a municipal map, and you will also see the absense of a city limit. It is justifiable to use city maps to determine whether a place is in a city or not.
The address is helpful (not from the "city name" provided by USPS, but from the Street name, street number, and zip code) - Plug it into a map and one will see a real location. Usually I also include a map (from a city, a county, or the US Gov) to further illustrate the real location of a place.
The City of Atlanta does provide municipal maps. At a later point I'll fetch the common URL for them. There are several areas that have "Atlanta, GA" addresses that are not in Atlanta (many are in Sandy Springs, GA - some are in unincorporated areas)
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many times there are multiple mapping programs that one can use to find a place (Google Maps, Yahoo Maps! and/or Mapquest) - Of them, Yahoo! Maps is the only one that indicates municipality boundaries. Usually the municipality boundaries correspond exactly to the current ones, but sometimes cities have annexed territory and the Yahoo Maps! have not been updated yet. This is why when I cite with maps I use U.S. Census Bureau maps and/or official city maps.
- Usually by providing an address and a relevant map document (All municipalities and CDPs have federal government US Census Bureau maps), the readers should have enough to put two and two together. Sometimes city, township, and/or county zoning maps can be very detailed and note exactly where certain places or institutions are. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the matter is whether to find whether a place is in an unincorporated area (not in a city) within a said county.
  - All the references regarding Atlanta could have an additional ref of a listing of the maps of the Atlanta city limits. In this instance there should be no question as to what the boundaries of the Atlanta city limits are.
  - I believe that saying "to verify this, use a mapping program and check between the other maps" is a reasonable step that a user can take. Usually an address will show the actual location of a place, and a user should reasonably be able to determine that it is in an unincorporated area.
  - If users say "but reliable sources (like newspapers) say the place is in Atlanta!" I will say that newspapers often describe a location by its USPS city name, and do not say "it is in an unincorporated area" - sometimes they do, and those ones that use the more precise location names can be cited to further back up the real location listings.
  - If you still have concerns there is a Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard
  - WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started regarding your behavior

Here you go, you now have an appropriate place to air your concerns about me. Wikipedia:Ani#Long term edit warrior has now become abusive. Enjoy! Tim Shuba (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fun experiment started by another user that I wanted to save

Long term edit warrior has now become abusive

Akuvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has been edit warring for months on Tom Van Flandern, has now decided to be abusive and hostile to me on the talk page. I suggested that he take concerns to an appropriate venue, but he instead has placed an off-topic rant along with a long and equally off-topic cut and paste from my talk page history into the article talk. Please take a look. Tim Shuba (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Launching an attack on a talk page, combined with a profound failure to appreciate removal of such things. Looks legit... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
   He can't edit war all by himself, can he? You've been warring against him. If that link shows the worst he's posted, you're wasting our time here, as there's no attack there. That's not an off-topic rant, he asserting (correctly) that you are hostile to the subject of the article. You've been repeatedly abusive about the subject, despite knowing that his son is reading and contributing to the talk page. And you did remove someone else's comment, instead of moving it as would have been the wise action.[60] Fences&Windows 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
   Ironically enough, you linked to WP:SEEKHELP five days ago. AN/I isn't on that list. Please take your own advice and follow dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

       Um, I have not been edit warring, please check the history. The situation is a complete farce and is not conducive to positive article development due to longstanding behavioral issues, which I don't believe will go away without sysops involvement. If other admins also don't find the level of abuse, ownership, conflict of interest, and edit warring there to be worth addressing, then fine. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

           Tim, what is it that I have been abusive to you about? We strongly disagree about the content of this article, that is for sure, and I and the subject's son have repeatedly asked for your cooperation, and all we get is a rant about how horrible a person the subject was. When YOU posted in the discussion board that your non-NPOV was "a fiction invented by Akuvar without any basis" I had every right to post your non-NPOV comments to defend my statement. And it is NOT a personal attack to point out to other editors that you deleted discussion page comments by another editor against wiki policy. If I attacked you some how, I apologize, but I just don't see it. I think because of your comments about the subject you ought to recuse yourself from that page entirely. Akuvar (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

               You claimed to be "shocked" that I would post to the talk page, saying I "removed myself" from the page. That is simply a lie. I found Mikevf to be reasonable and told him as much, and our exchange on my talk page was rather cordial. Cherry-picking quotes from it and using them to malign me on the article talk page is an attack. Sure I think Tom Van Flandern was an extreme relativity crank, so what? Yes, it would be convenient to ban everyone with that view from the article, since it's also a widespread view among mainstream experts, and excluding technically competent people is important for pushing fringe claptrap on the general public.

               Anyway, the note from the administrator above is clear. I am edit warring (never mind that I have made only three edits to the article ever, all of which were immediately reverted by Akuvar months ago without me reinserting them). I am hostile and abusive (for stating an honest opinion shared by numerous experts). And I am unwise for removing text that obscured the first post I've made in months on the talk page (as if it couldn't just be reposted properly, without posturing and fanfare).

               So there you have it. I have been chastised. This has been great entertainment, beyond my hopes, and now ought to be closed so sysops won't be wasting time on frivolous whiners like myself. Tim Shuba (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

                   I think that the next corrections to Tim Shuba's post are needed:
                   (i) Akuvar did not said that you removed but that he "thought you had removed yourself". Therein the reason which he said that he was "shocked" seeing you editing again. Maybe he was wrong about your self-removal but he did not lie about this because he did clear that was his/her though.
                   (ii) You say now that your exchange with tvf's son was rather cordial but you have deleted your talk page. In an archived version we can read the parts that you omit to quote now. In that link you show your non-NPOV on the subject that you are editing. For instance, this is an extract from your deleted talk page that reveals your intentions:

                       Same goes for the incompetent, dishonest crank Tom Van Flandern. My primary interest in Van Flandern and the development of the article is personal amusement.

                   (iii) You are clearly hostile and abusive as several editors have noticed in several places. For instance, this is what a third editor said to you:

                       You are maligning an honest, decent, hardworking man with a solid resume and credentials.

                   (iv) You claim now that you "removed text that obscured the first post" that you had done in months. Again this is false. You removed the text added to your contribution and you removed also the text added to a last contribution by Urgent01. You claim now that you "removed text", but in the editing page of the article you wrote in the edit summary that you had "removed junk". What you called junk were just extracts from other Wikipedia pages that were being misquoted in the article by both you and Urgent01. For instance, Urgent01 said to Akuvar:

                       regarding the "Gravity Research Foundation Award", you should be aware that it is a crackpot organization. Read the Wikipedia article on it. Loony tunes. To get SECOND prize from a crackpot organization is a highly questionable "honor",

                   and I added just after the following Wikipedia text that corrects Urgent01 biased and inaccurate statements:

                       The annual essay prize drew respected researchers who didn't mind a shot at a few thousand dollars—including physicist Stephen Hawking, who won several times [...]. Recent winners include California astrophysicist George F. Smoot, who later won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics.

                   You named that info as junk and deleted from the page, violating basic guidelines as was properly noticed by several editors JuanR (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Talk page discussion on TVF article (save)

I am growing increasingly concerned by your constant revision of the Tom Van Flandern article to an old version. This reversion does not take into account new items and sections that have been added to the article. Many of these additions you have not objected to in the discussion pages. I feel you should only revert the items that you take difference with, and discuss them in the talk page of that article. In one instance, the Gravity Foundation Award, I went with your recommendation that we add a citation concerning future developments and yet you still revert it. On its face, that appears to me that you are not making a good faith effort to compromise if you revert what you said in the discussion page would be OK with you. Akuvar (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the edits I've made is thoroughly discussed and explained on the Discussion page of that article. In the one example you cite, regarding the Gravity Foundation Award, a full discussion took place (falsifying your claim that it has not been discussed), with reference to the Wikipedia article on the Gravity Foundation, which makes it clear that it is a crackpot venue with zero scientific legitimacy. A second prize from a crackpot for a paper now known to have been fundamentally flawed, misguided, and erroneous does not, by any stretch of the imagination, warrant an "Honors" section in a Wikipedia article. It is perfectly obvious that your attempt to insert an "Honors" section, populated with misrepresented stuff like this, is simply part of your self-admited effort to impose your own POV on the article. Fundamentally, the view you personally have of TVF is not the view of any mainstream secondary independent and reputable sources. You are obviously entitled to your personal point of view, but according to Wikipedia policy, the article must reflect the views to be found in reputable verifiable sources (which does not include either Metareaearch or the Gravity Foundation or the Natural Philosophy Alliance, etc. etc.) Please stop violating Wikipedia policy with your edits. And please re-read the discussion page. It contains thorough discussion of each and every edit, which you seem to have missed. Thanks.Urgent01 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"simply part of your self-admited effort to impose your own POV on the article." What creation is this of yours? The Gravity Foundation was discussed and the consensus was that the awards are noteable. Editor JuanR pointed out several recipients who specifically sought the award. After repeated requests, no one has been able to show me how easy it is to get an asteroid named after oneself, although that is your argument. The Chief title is cited on the biography page of the MetaResearch website, and under wikipedia guidelines that is specifically allowed as a source. I also made a change to the Deep Reality Physics quote, which your revisions cancel out. YOU proposed a footnote for the Gravity Foundation award, which I agreed to, but then you went back on your cooperation and decided you don't want any mention of it at all, which in my opinion is a lack of good faith editing on your part. No, you are not playing by the rules here, if you want to make a change to a specific part, do that and cite your reasons, but repeated revisions of the entire article to an older version that meets your criteria of belittling the subject is not acceptable. Akuvar (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that I've consistently proposed include a discussion of TVF's erroneous paper on variable G (the paper for which the crackpot Gravity Foundation gave second prize), but of course not in a preposterous "Honors" section. It is simply another mildly notable item to be mentioned. As to your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on the use of personal web sites as the sole source for self-serving statements involving 3rd parties, I can only direct your attention to the Discussion page section where the administrator repeatedly pointed you to the Wikipedia policy each time you asked him why he disapproved of your edits. The fact that you were able to construe this spanking as an endorsement of your views is symptomatic of the difficulties with editing this article. I ask you in good faith to please re-read, carefully, Wikipedia policies, and then stop violating them. Thanks.Urgent01 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but your interpretation is incorrect, and I would urge you to read the wikipedia rules on the subject. I would urge you to read the wikipedia rules on vandalizing an article that you are repeatedly wiping out all good faith edits made by editors, you complain only about one or two edits, and you write nothing in the discussion page. Akuvar (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is mistaken. Each of the edits I've made has been fully and thoroughly explained and justified on the Discussion page. You seem to think that some of my edits are inadvertent, but that's not the case. If you compare each of my edited versions with the previous version, each of those differences is intentional, and each of them has been fully justified on the discussion page - as you know.Urgent01 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Let's take, as one example, the statement about Deep Reality Physics. The explanation of Deep Reality Physics in the old version that you continually revert to is incorrect. Some time ago I changed that line as a direct quote from TVF's paper "Physics has its Principles" so that that line was improved. You have made no mention of this in the discussion pages, however your reversion continually resets it to the old, incorrect line. So, your statement above is false, this is something I have indicated over and over again, that your revision is overwriting good faith edits that you have never mentioned, and you continually ignore it, and you continually revert the article. So your not even working with me or paying any attention to my complaints about your edits. Almost every single reversion I have made is followed by the comment that you are reverting edits made that you have not complained about. You also haven't explained your close-to-personal-attack above "simply part of your self-admited effort to impose your own POV on the article." Akuvar (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from TVF talk page by subject's son concerning similarities of editors

User 130.76, you are making extensive edits to this content of a highly controversial and contested article. You are also making specious and obscure arguments that are identical to arguments made by a previous anonymous user who eventually adopted the user ID 63.24.xxxx. Specifically: 1. You claim Tom is notable for espousal of infinite free energy (driven by the ultra-mundane flux). To my knowledge Tom did not publish papers espousing free energy, he didn't write about it on his web site or in his book or in discuss it in any media appearance. In fact, to my knowledge the closest he ever came was a single presentation at an obscure conference where Tom suggested efforts to find sources of free energy would be better directed toward harnessing particle gravity. And the only reason I know about that is because user 63.24 managed to find a obscure google link on the presentation. 2. You seem to have misinterpreted Tom's SoG first paper in exactly the same way 63.24 repeatedly did despite painstaking and repeated corrections by JuanR and you've ignored his subsequent papers. 3. You've challenged the value of citations by the Minor Planets Circular just as 63.24 did. Citations used to be a lot more lax and allowed fictional characters but that hasn't been the case for many years now. The rules are now more stringent and are reviewed by an over-site group. Naming rights are granted to the discoverer. It's not a Nobel prize but it's not a condolence gift either (and cannot be purchased). 4. You called for the deletion of the article because it's not suitably defaming of Tom Van Flandern, just as user 63.24 repeatedly did. This article has been nominated twice for deletion for disgruntled editors and twice voted to keep. Unfortunately, user 63.24.xxxx's contributions were not held in high regard. If you plan to continue making extensive edits to this article please do so from a user account. That would make it easier to follow your input and reassure others that you are in fact a new editor. I'm sure editors here would be happy to discuss and work through your concerns. Of course if you have edited this article previously with a user account I'd ask that you please sign future edits with that user ID. One last comment... you asked for any examples of other authors appearing on the Meta Research web site. Authors other than Tom appear in nearly every issue of the Meta Research Bulletin which was published quarterly. I'll post 2 examples (which I assume will suffice): http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0615/Mrb07bp3.asp http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp Thanks -Mike

Reply

Hello, I don't care to share my email on Wikipedia, and I haven't set up a throw-away email account for the purpose. I don't think I'll be much help to you anyway; the amount of time I'm willing to spend on this project has significantly decreased. Good luck, ClovisPt (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Urgent01 has been warned for long-time block reversion of TVF article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Urgent01

I wait he stop such nasty behavior now. JuanR (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User Urgent01

HJ - could you clarify your block message for Urgent01 (talk · contribs)? I'm not seeing a textbook 3rr at either article mentioned, but there is certainly a blockable "land war in asia" style edit war at one of them. I'm presuming it was a symmetrical block for that. Kuru (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified it in the decline. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. The block was indeed for conduct at Van Flandern (incivility and drawn-out edit warring). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice on 'saving stuff'

The above looks like the users have actually posted here, when they really have not. It 'could' be taken as impersonation. Whenever you copy something, never copy the markup of the signature. Just copy the rendered text. To that end, I am going to modify any post on this page, that was not posted here originally, to make it obvious such is the case.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That obviously isn't my intention. So what do I do to make it OK, just take the link out of their signature so it doesn't appear that they posted here? Akuvar (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend just using a diff of the text your saving. Other than that, you can copy the rendered text; eg, the text as it appears on a saved page, rather than copying through the edit window.

That aside, why are you keeping these lists? I must ask as certain lists are against policy, and should only be kept off-wiki, such as a text file on your computer.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by your comments about civility in the Tom van Flandern page

Thanks you for the kindly words and for the facts that you brilliantly wrote in my talk page! The Wikiquete allerts issue vanished in the air without any conclusion/action. I have repetitively asked for explanations of the last edits done in the TvF page without any response by the editors who did the edits and reverts. I have opened a new section in my User_talk:JuanR and asked once again to the editors in their respective talk pages for explanations of why the consensus version was substituted by the version by DH editor. JuanR (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slickee Boys

Look, if you want to add that stuff back in there, you need to cite it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please pick WHY you want the information removed, do you think it needs to be cited? I wasn't the original author who added the info, but if you post that the Bill list needs to be cited or removed, someone may step up to the plate. However, you said when you originally removed it that it wasn't relevant, and I restored it because I think it is. So, do you want to debate relevance, or do you want people to find citations? Akuvar (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's removed or not. If it's not cited we don't know if it's true, so it needs to be cited if it's in there. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not remove porperly sourced and relevant content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tom Van Flandern. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. See the article's talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Tom Van Flandern again. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Akuvar. You have new messages at Elektrik Shoos's talk page.
Message added 04:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

elektrik SHOOS (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Akuvar. You have new messages at Cbbkr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cbbkr (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Akuvar. You have new messages at Cbbkr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cbbkr (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion that User:Flau98bert is a banned user.

Akuvar, if you believe that Flau98bert is a sockpuppet for a banned user you should bring it up on WP:SPI. You must not accuse Flau98bert of being a banned unless this is confirmed. Your accusation is certainly not justification for reverting everything that he writes.

What evidence do you have? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have detailed the reasons on the Tom Van Flandern Talk page, but I do not mind adding that once you argue with someone for several months, you can easily identify their style, their arguments, their methods, their colloquialisms. I'm sure their are people on the Monty Hall page that you have come to know strictly through their arguments. The subject's son, Mike, has read the posts and knows exactly who the user is outside of wikipedia. Most damaging, IMO, is recent events where old supporters of his last user ID, Urgent01, were soliceted to comment on this article again. Both D.H and DVdm (who are both far more intelligent than I for abandoning this article months ago) supported arguments by Urgent01 and were asked to weigh in on this new dispute. Editors like JuanR who openly opposed Urgent01 was not solicited. But most interesting is the fact that Flau98bert posted a request for editor D.H to look at this page, and then retracted that request with this tag, "removing unwelcome request, with apologies" however I can find no note from editor D.H on any talk page rebuffing Flau98bert for this post. This leads me to believe, IMO, that they have some communication outside of wikipedia, just as it seemed apparent that their was communication between user Urgent01 outside of wikipedia. Akuvar (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I sympathise to some degree with you. It can be fairly obvious that one editor is really another one or at least in close collusion with them but nothing can be done about it. WP has rules on this kind of thing and they say that you must report the matter to WP:SPI and abide by their decision. If you continue to accuse an editor of being some kind of sockpuppet without going through the correct procedure then you are likely to be the recipient of sanctions rather than them.

Why have you not gone to WP:SPI?

Just a thought. One reason that Flaubert might seem to present similar arguments to other editors is that he is stating the views of mainstream physicists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've said supports your contention that I am a "banned user". I say again, I am not a banned user. In fact, it's easy to check the block log for each of the editors listed in the Talk archive for this article, and confirm that not one of them is blocked or banned, so your claim that I am a sock puppet for a "banned user" is obviously false.

Regarding your comments about identifying me "outside of wikipedia", I would ask you to please review WP:HARRASSMENT and WP:OUTING. Also, please review WP on the right of pseudonymous editing. As an aside, regarding your personal connnection with "the subject's son", you might also review WP:COI. Regarding your complaint that I contacted other editors who have edited this page in the past to solicit their opinions on disputed content, please note that this is encouraged in Wikipedia as a way of trying to get "third opinions" and publicize RfCs.

What I'm trying to do here is follow Wikipedia dispute resolution policies to work toward improving the article. For example, to resolve the question about the Philosophy section I started an RfC and was able to achieve unanimous 4-0 agreement (for the editors who chose to participate in the dispute resolution process). I think this is exemplary editing for a very contentious article. I think by adhering to Wikipedia dispute resolution practices we can continue to make progress toward consensus and improving the article.Flau98bert (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flaubert, I suggest you raise this on WP:RFCC.

Akuvar, If you still think Flaubert is a banned editor bring it up on WP:SPI.

Your deletion on George Takei

I undid your deletion on the George Takei page because it was inappropriate. The section it was in, "After Star Trek", was the appropriate place for the description of the Psych episode he was in. That same section gives a similar description of his appearance in the scripted shows Heroes and The Big Bang Theory. You suggested it be put in "Filmography", which does not include any descriptions of his appearances whatsoever, and is merely a table listing shows he has appeared on.

I appreciate you writing me about this. The entry you made was more about the show, what happened in the show, who is in the show, then it was about George. The listings from year to year are for activities George took part in (events, appearances, commercials, TV shows, etc.) that are NOTABLE to the subject of the article (George). Although he appeared as himself in the episode you listed, it was just another acting gig, just another role he played and therefore belongs in an entry under filmography, not on his historical timeline. Hopefully my explanation is sufficient for you to see why it doesn't belong there and why I removed it. If you feel otherwise, please let me know. Akuvar (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Roddenberry

Hi, please remember to use edit summaries, especially when a significant amount of content is removed such as in [1]. Thanks! Taroaldo ✉ 23:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm overhauling the filmography section which is requiring multiple edit of the same section. I stated this in previous edit summaries and the talk page. I'll try to place some more comments in the future. Akuvar (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engineer (Alien character), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Engineer (character) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Engineer (character), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Engineer (character)

Hello, Akuvar. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Engineer".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]