User talk:Duae Quartunciae/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Duae Quartunciae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dispute Question

Per WP:LEGAL, should I be asking Mr. Young to retract his threat to press charges? I do apologize for debating in the Wikiquette page, but if I don't, I'm worried that he'll drown out my WP:NPA and WP:HARASS complaints by posting his conspiracy theory about my "Supercentenarian Holocaust." He also lists facts that are either misrepresented or made up that I feel like I have to defend myself against because they are accusations. Cheers, CP 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is awfully hard to figure out what is going on. Ryoung122 brought the original alert, so it is probably sensible to make some kind of comment yourself in response.

I will probably try to manage this, at first, by the simple expedient of boxing up long rambling diatribes and dumping them into the NavFrame, or something like that. I think you probably need to be ready with a short clear statement of position. If it gets mangled with a lot of counter argument, I'll just clear them out. I want you both to be heard; but as side by side statements, not as an extended blow by blow exchange. I think that will work well for you as well.

Wikiquette alerts don't actually do a lot, beside let people blow off steam and let other editors try to help calm the waters. If it comes to official problems of any kind, like legal threats or user bans or anything like that, it has to be handled elsewhere. I appreciate that you did not bring the alert, and I don't know enough of what is going on to give good advice yet. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup. I had a quick glance through the exchange, and frankly I don't think you need to worry about legal issues. It looks like a good candidate for a wikiquette alert. A bit of free advice might even clear most of it up. We'll see. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like Ryoung122 has moved on and dropped the conspiracy from his page, so for now I have nothing to worry about I suppose. Your help was greatly appreciated, especially when I felt like no one was there to help me with this! Thank you, your help made the difference between me staying and me taking a very long wikibreak! I think it's appropriate to leave a little something on your main page... Cheers, CP 15:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutron's talk page

Although it sounds reasonable what are you saying, the present situation is particular in a sense that there is an ongoing dispute with the other user, and he is trying to represent me as the impostor, while it was he all the time who acted out of line. If any 'powers that be' read the history of this dispute I want them to have full and unedited sequence of events, which Mr. Neutron is trying sneakily to conceal, and present me as the bad guy. Other than that, I have no problem with him vandalizing his own talk page.

Capricornis 03:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are way out of line with the ways you are using terms "vandalize". This is not open to debate; you are definitely misusing the term, and that is a personal attack. On this point in isolation, you are in the wrong. If you want to make any progress at all with you other concerns, you need to retract this and stop misusing standard terms in this way.

In the same way, your insinuations of being "sneaky" are not acceptable, and will also make it harder for anyone to help you. At this point, the way you are pursuing the matter is ending up putting everyone off and making you look like the major problem.

I have had a bit of a look at the page you are concerned about, and I think you might have a point about the content. I am not sure as yet. As a matter of basic advice about getting things cleared up, you might need outside help from neutral observers and possibly administrators. For that to happen, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of sticking carefully to accepted guidelines yourself. Hard though it may be, you are going to have to review the following.

Assume good faith Try to put yourself in Mr Neutron's shows. You may think he is mistaken on some points, but you should try your hardest to see if just maybe he also really is trying to work to make a better encyclopedia. I'll tell you frankly, all content matters aside, it looks to me that you both are working in good faith to try and make a better article, but have different ideas of what that might involve. If either of you distract the central content matters with a lot of presumptions that the other side is not working in good faith, then you make yourself in a problem that administrators and observers will be trying to correct. Just like I am now.
No personal attack You can disagree with someone, and you can point out problems with various versions of an article. You can disagree with and be critical of the actions of another editor. But as soon as you start throwing around words like "sneaky", you actually draw attention to yourself and end up being the focus of attention as a likely source of the problems.
Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. These are two foundational principles in Wikipedia. If you can make a solid case for change, founded on a credible understanding of those guidelines as written, then you have the best possible hope of change. If you argue for change based on fairness, or on historical accuracy with the presumption that you are one editor with historical accuracy all sewn up, then again you end up being the problem. Understanding these guidelines is the key to making a case in mediation or arbitration situations.

This is intended as a help to you working more effectively at Wikipedia. Good luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Someone recently made reference to the Wikimedia Board legal counsel Mike Godwin (also User:Mikegodwin) advising against aggressive image deletion of fair-use material that was not contested by the copyright holder, or something to that general effect. I wonder if you've seen it and recall where you saw it? thanks, ... Kenosis 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I haven't seen it. My own perspective on this is that there is a hardline group against any use of non-free images at all, who as a compromise want to have the strongest possible interpretation of policy. The policy at the English wikipedia seems to be a kind of exception to a position of the foundation [1]. I suspect that is the issue, rather than any legal concern. It's a kind of determined anti non-free principle for its own sake. I think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DuaeQ... [however it's spelled]. If someone knows where it's posted, I'd appreciate being pointed to it again -- I neglected to bookmark it. ... Kenosis 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Excuse me, dear Duae Quartunciae, could I ask you do you speak and read Bulgarian? It is important, trust me in advance. Greetings, Jackanapes 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust anyone in advance, and I don't speak any Bulgarian. I am completely new to the subject; and strongly opposed to nationalist perspectives of ANY kind being the basis for articles. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The official "domestic" language of all IMRO revolutionaries was exactly Bulgarian language. It is really strange that you embark on general editing of the article about Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising without having command of the main literary language of the Macedonian and Thracian liberating movement in the beginning of the 20th century. Please, try to understand my intentions with these words. Of course it is not sin not to know some language, but personally I will not try to edit highly controversial historical topics without profound knowledge of the concrete problems and their documentary base. Accept my greetings, Jackanapes 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not embarked on any general editing of the page. I am raising issues in the discussion. I have not mentioned language at all. I am deeply suspicious of the particular nationalist perspectives here; both the Bulgarian view that prefers to down play the moves towards new autonomous states and the Macedonian view that prefers to down play the breadth of the insurrections.

Wikipedia is a teriary source. It should be based mainly on what appears in secondary sources; not on primary sources. To insist that the article can only be written by experts with access to primary sources is an invitation to abuse and to original research. The overriding concerns for Wikipedia are neutral point of view, and no original research. You should pay particular attention to primary secondary and teriary sources, which is a section within the no original research official guideline.

If a total novice like myself does step in to edit the article, which I have NOT done as yet, it will be primarily to maintain these principles. The idea would not be to write a complete article by a novice, but for a neutral outsider to structure what is given by people with more expertise, in a way that best fits the wikipedia guidelines.

I would very much prefer not to have to do this. I have not done so as yet. But I will not hesitate if it becomes necessary. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in Macedonian history, you could read following english-language books, written by eyewitnesses:

Greetings, Jackanapes 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've gone ahead and added a statement. By the way; I recently expressed some major frustration on image related stuff. I'm annoyed with what is going on, which I consider to be wasting time, sowing discord, and exceeding policy. But I accept your good will and good faith, and I think this move may help clarify things. Whatever the outcome, some clarification would be a welcome addition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just passing this up the chain in hopes of ending this whole thing, but it appears unlikely the ArbCom will hear the issue, so the battles across the wiki, and the animosity and personal attacks, will continue. My personal participation in this whole issue (and in working non-free content issues in general) is over. Best regards... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. It's a pity. It was a good try however. Best of luck with your ongoing activities; and no hard feelings on my part. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

voting on wikipedia?

Hi, could you point me to pages where wikipedia voting is decsribed and how to set one? I would like to do it for the ilinden uprising article name, since it seems that User: Mr. Neutron will never accept mediation, and the name thing has gotten out of hand completely by now. thanks Capricornis 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any such thing. The thing to aim for is consensus on the talk page. It's hard to get that, but that it the process in wikipedia, as I understand the matter. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Significance of images

I completely agree with the arguments that the books in question are significant. What has not been justified to me is that the covers are significant. Could you explain to me how the covers, qua specific copyrighted works, are significant? I am not asking why monkeys or pandas are significant, but why these particular artistic works, the covers, are significant.

Also, I would like to ask you to tone down your rhetoric. I intentionally didn't respond to your comment yesterday "The claim that these images are just for decoration is fundamentally a refusal to assume good faith, made by clueless nitwits coming fresh to the topic, who are determined to see nothing but the worst and willing to run roughshod over the consensus and the input of editors who actually work on the topic." Rather than commenting on the (lack of) quality of my judgment, as you have done again today, you could try contacting me individually to find out what my concerns are. I am very willing to discuss things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I confess to being increasingly frustrated at this debate. I think the manner in which it is being pursued is disruptive, and corrosive of the good working at the encyclopedia. I am annoyed at repeated implications that I am not being genuine in my own advocacy for the significance of these images, and that I am really just making excuses for the sake of decoration. I am annoyed that despite the fact that I have explained the relevance of the images repeatedly, people still want to see it again. I am annoyed that there seem to be endless hurdles placed in the way of non-free content, which seems to me to conflict with the formal exemption doctrine policy; which is intended to allow for non-free content in certain circumstances. These restrictions are substantially stronger than legal fair use restrictions; but they are not intended to be prohibitive, and the exemption policy for en.wikipedia explicitly identifies a tension between free content and quality content.

Part of the problem is that there is a hard core of deletion advocates who deny that there is any compromise involved, and who apply the policy with extreme paraphrases of the policy wording that reflect their personal view of what policy should be rather than a credible account of what policy actually says for itself; and they will just keep trying again and again and again in different venues or with different clauses or with petty quibbles over the structure of rationales until they finally get what they want.

I don't know that you are in this far extreme of the debate; I'm just noting this as a weak excuse for being fed up and raw with the mess, and touchy about how it is being pursued. I'm sorry if I have let that hit you harder than was appropriate.

The easiest one to explain is the cover of Darwin's Black Box. I've tried to explain its significant a couple of times now. Here's another attempt....

There are several dimensions to the whole intelligent design debate. There is a question about whether it is science, or religion. There is the question about whether it replaces evolution or extends it. There is the question about whether it should be taught in schools or left out of schools until the case is made in the scientific arena. And finally, there is the charge made by critics of the ID movement that the advocates of ID flip from one position to the other depending on their audience and with no particular concern for consistency. We could go over all the indications of this, but its a big topic; and the article gives a reasonable introduction to the issues.

Into this mix we have a book... Darwin's Black Box. It is written by a credentialed working scientist; a biochemist. It makes no direct appeal to God or religion, but presents itself as giving a purely scientific argument in the author's own area of expertise -- biochemistry -- for the inadequacy of conventional Darwinian processes to give rise to a particular kind of structure, which the author called "irreducibly complex". The author notes that this kind of structure is not so apparent at the gross level of morphology, but in the fine details of intricate machine-like biochemical systems, which the author claims defy any evolutionary explanation. The author is explicit that he is not objecting to common descent, or the shared ancestry of humanity and other animals. It is a critique of process.

The book content thus bears upon the dimensions I note above. It presents itself as science, not as religion. It presents itself as introducing a new idea for science, not as a school text. It presents itself as a critique of the processes of evolution, and not of the hypothesis of relationships between different species. And yet; there on the cover is a man back to back with a chimpanzee. That is a plain appeal to the question of relationship; not process. It is a plain appeal to distinctions in gross morphology, not intricate biochemistry. Most book covers attempt to convey some sort of visual message; and the message here is tailored to popular creationism. It is a microcosm of the ID movement's approach of shoring up good old fashioned creationism under the cover of an allegedly distinct scientific argument. The importance of this whole issue of the relationship between ID and creationism is central to the ID debate; and was a major focus of the Kitzmiller lawsuit in 2005, where Behe was an expert witness. He was ravaged in cross examination, and ended up being a significant factor in the final ruling that intelligent design was indeed just creationism repacked. The packaging of the book reflects this as well.

The ID debate is a culture war, and it is engaged not in the halls of academic and science; but in the school boards and churches and popular campaigns aimed at the general public. The chosen images on book covers are an important part of this, and the particular imagery of the cover; and the fact that this is the cover of this particular book, all bears directly upon major dimensions of the whole ID issue and of the battle for the public mind.

I could never put all of that into a wikipedia article. It is basically my own expert opinion; and would count as original research. I do claim to be something of an expert on this book; but I don't claim the right to put my arguments into an article without citation. Furthermore, spending too much text on analysis of cover would be undue weight. The best thing to do, in my opinion, and in line with neutral point of view, is to present the image itself, with a bit of background in the article on the themes that bear upon its relevance. It is legitimately relevant information; and the chosen imagery has pertinent associations, and the placement of that imagery in the cover of this particular book is important. Presenting the image gives the visual message that was intended, and the overly long argument I have given above shows (or attempts to show) why it is significant. It should be taken as a reason for including the image, and not as an perspective that should be incorporated into the article as a matter of encyclopedic information. The real information is the cover itself.

I don't actually expect this to be persuasive; I've become too cynical for that. And even if you suddenly switch over, there is a stream of others to take your place; all claiming the right to override consensus on the basis of policy. I think that the image fits policy, but I have grown tired of the fights and the way they are engaged. I think this is just one symptom of a deeper problem with wikipedia, that is still being stuggled with; which is how you balance the benefits from allowing anyone to step up and contribute to the encyclopedia, with recognition that there are some cases where special expertise can enhance the quality of an article. We've lost some first rate contributors who have given up in the face of an endless struggle to maintain a good level of quality once achieved in the face of a tendency for exceptional quality to degrade as poorly founded additions or removals are introduced.

Effectively I am resigned to probable loss of important content. It does degrade quality, in a way that I think the exemption policy was intended to prevent, but hey. It's still a good article in any case.

But I am deadly serious in arguing that this cover fits the criteria for non-free content spelled out in policy. I am not just out to decorate the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

alleged personal attacks

I was replying to an attack by the user you mention here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yane_Sandanski&diff=156764582&oldid=156738006 (see the bottom paragraph). I did not attack anybody, I was simply expressing a personal opinion and that is if someone doesn't contribute original work to wikipedia, and all their edits concentrates on representing one side on a particular topic, they could just as well stop contributing as long as I am considered. thank you Capricornis 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There is plenty of bad behaviour all around, but your own behaviour invariably makes it worse rather than tries to help. You do not reply to attacks on one page by making more attacks on a different page. Keep your personal opinions to yourself. Expressing a negative personal opinion in the way you did was definitely an attack. Stop it.

And if anyone reading this page is wondering what this is about, Capricornis made his "personal opinion" in the talk page of Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising.

thank you for the clarification, much obliged :) Capricornis 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User Grant65

It seems that you may have missed the info. please seemy reply on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎ page.Dapi89 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123 (notably when he tried to file a complaint against User:Georgewilliamherbert. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity purges

Is it necessary to cite a justification for each of the references? My contributions to the article correctly recorded the conclusions of reputable authors and publications. There was a statement in Wikipedia about the need for controversal articles citing numerous references. Subsequently, the massive list of citations. Tcisco 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the actual content discussion on Talk:Anti-gravity. But just as a matter of guidelines on style; my understanding of the guidelines is that there is a strong distinction between citations as footnotes to the main text, and external references as supplements to the main text. I mention this distinction in the comments in the article talk page.

A controversial article will tend to have statements that require a citation for verification. Usually, this is best given as a footnote, with the citation appearing in the list of references. There may be quite a lot of these if there are a lot of statements that could be disputed.

On the other hand, external references are additional sources for further reading, not given as a footnote to a specific claim in the main text. The guideline is that you should have a minimum of such additional external references. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille

Thanks for your considered approach to this matter. I allowed minor provocations to get the better of me and as an admin I should not have taken the bait. I also accept that I was in breach of the spirit of 3RR. Grant | Talk 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I am glad to help. I have no particular concerns about your contributions as an admin, and am all too aware of how easy it is to get a bit carried away. No harm done, in my view; and I hope you can patch it up with Dapi89 as well, who seems to be a useful contributor. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clash with another user

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 134.148.5.119 lifted or expired. I have however reblocked the IP for 24 hours, in case Grizzly tries to evade the block by creating accounts or not logging in. This block shouldn't affect you, though, please let me know if you can edit :)

Request handled by: ~ Riana ⁂ 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just clarify this request a bit. I am currently editing wikipedia from the University of Newcastle. I don't know how the University network handles a connection, or what IP address currently appears for you. I have had a quick look at Grizzlybear82, and would not want you to do anything rash that might let such an abusive user back on the system.

If I can be unblocked without risking the integrity of a very well founded block on Grizzlybear82, then please unblock me. If you can block the IP address without actually blocking me by name, that would be fine. I will be able to edit wikipedia at home. I would appreciate a bit of feedback as to how all of this works.

Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Riana. I can edit again now. I'm not sure how IP addresses are managed from here, but I looked at the documentation of autoblock and that makes good sense. Thanks for your help. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement images

Would it be possible to repace the images on Intellegent design with free images that illustrate similar concepts as the cover art of the book images? — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. In my opinion, no. It is the fact they these are the covers under which ID is being presented and sold to the public that gives them their relevance. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, we might be able to use an image of a panda instead of the cover image of the Pandas and people book? The image caption could reflect the choice of image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What matters is how the books are being presented. Not the image itself; but the association of the image and the book. The information I am speaking of is information about how the book presents itself to customers. Trying to replace it with something else is not really sensible. It would certainly be invalid to use the book cover as a way to illustrate a Panda's thumb, or as an iconic representation of the contrast between man and animal. If that was the issue, then sure; there would be other images. But in this case, what matters is that this is how the book is presented.

From my perspective, what we have here is some folks who are committed to finding any way possible to get rid of non-free images, for the sake of a principle, which I recognize, that free content is preferred. The difficulty is that some folks make that principle a kind of absolute, or at least powerfully dominant over other secondary issues. If you can get a meaningful article without the non-free content, then the fact that it might be better with non-free content is not enough.

But as I read the policy, the English wikipedia (in contrast to some others, like the German) has recognized a trade off between free content and quality content; and allowed for an exemption for non-free content under a set of criteria that is actually pretty reasonable, and not prohibitive. Now (my opinion again) the sensible way to apply the policy is to recognize when an image meets those criteria, and then just lay off. Unfortunately, what is happening in practice is that we get one objection after another after another; endless quibbles to try and undermine the rationales, and a hard core of individuals (you are not the worst by any means) who take such a hard line that almost nothing is acceptable. There are a few (Angst, for example) who have explicitly insisted that there is never a conflict between free content and quality content, and there is never any need to use a non-free image. They may pick their targets, but they can be counted upon to ensure you never get a consensus on this.

So Carl, you do what you have to do. I promise that I won't hound you for it or hold a grudge. I think you are wrong about this one; and I will continue to argue the case while it remains live. I'm not going to just accept the inevitably of a decision that I think is foolish. But which ever way it goes, I'll try to continue to be a constructive and helpful colleague in the day to day work of the encyclopedia, without letting this disagreement poison every other interaction.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused now; I thought that the reason these covers were used was because of the imagery on their covers. Can you explain in just a sentence or two what your goal is (not a long rationale, just an informal goal) for the Pandas and People cover image in Intelligent design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBM (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Very briefly. ID is a culture war, founded not any any credible substance but on slick sales of an idea. The idea is, fundamentally, creationism. It must simultaneously appeal to creationists, and also slip under the radar of legal problems with teaching creationism.

The cover of a book is the way it presents the first impact for buyers. In the case of ID, this has a special significance in the whole debate.

That's the general argument (one of them; the one I find strongest) for the importance of the cover image as substantive and significant additional information. I want to show how these texts present to the superficial browser.

In the special case of Pandas, this appeal in the cover is a bit less blatant than Black Box. The Pandas cover is (IMO) an appeal to superficial intuitions about teleology. The panda's thumb is useful; this is a fallacious argument for design that has strong popular appeal.

It is noteworthy that Pandas was the chosen text at the heart of the Kitzmiller trial; and when in the proceedings it came out that the board recommending the text did not even know its content. The board was, of course, out and out creationist. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is clearer to me. My main sticking point is the assertion that this book cover (rather than the contents of the book) has special significance for the debate. I'm not familiar with the terminology "first impact". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help on a couple of Wikiquette alerts

Hey, I seem to be having some trouble with the last couple of alerts I've taken on (I must be losing my touch), and I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at them and inject another voice into the discussions. They are WP:WQA#User:Anyeverybody and WP:WQA#Issues with an admin.

(My apologies if this note is redundant - personally, once I see that another volunteer has taken on a case, I usually stop paying attention to it. Since I assume that everybody else is the same as me, I'm assuming that nobody else is reading those alerts anymore, and that this sort of active solicitation of help is required.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sincerity

Repaying your sincerity I thought it could only be fair to let you know my personal view beyond my editing view which is at the article's talk page. I believe it is pseudoscience, bad presented as lacking proper scientific protocol, difficult to follow reproducing experimentation in a solid environment and much of a philosophy entanglement attached to it. I however recognize in it a possible interesting concept which could have some grains of truth that deserve further look but in a more serious research following strict scientific protocol. Unfortunately those few who dare, would not accept to say they are doing it so that is a dead end. The proposal I think deserves to be shown as what it is, a mere scientific proposal, not a scientific theory, not a new proven concept but not pseudoscience either, just a proposal. Hopefully someone will come who will either trash it based on scientific evidence or confirm it scientifically, until then all what we have is the said proposal. So, now you know my opinion. Fairly said, you have strong opinions but editing fairness, which shows you in a very good light Jenny ^Len☤ 09:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Jenny. Wikipedia, like the force, has a light side and a dark side. This is a great place to come and read about stuff that hardly gets a look in at more conventional sources. The down side is that sometimes it gets presented with overmuch credulity. I'll be content if Sheldrake's ideas get a fair description; so that the actual content of what he proposes is given a fair summary, apart from any meta-analysis. Then the article should also give an accurate account of the reception and impact of his ideas. In my view, the proper application of neutrality mean that the article should show that these ideas have had more kicks than ha'pence in the scientific world. I don't think the article should come out and say... "this work is pseudoscience". Rather, the article should say that Sheldrake's work has been labeled pseudoscience by a number of working biologists; that it has had almost no impact on modern biology, and that it continues to attract interest from a minority of people in the scientific world who like to consider notions outside the usual boxes. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Martin Tajmar

An editor has nominated Martin Tajmar, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar and 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. Thank you. Freederick (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Help Needed with Sungenis Article

A new editor has just shown up at wikipedia. Unfortunately, he seems intent on turning the article about Robert Sungenis into a propaganda piece.

Interestingly, the only other editing he's done is on the article for the Nazi, Heinrich Himmler. I could use your help and advice over there.

He's repeatedly added the body of an entire article written for Sungenis, written things that are plainly untrue, etc. etc. I've tried to persuade him to at least use the talk page but he will only continue to revert the article back to what he wants.

I've tried to incorporate what is legit in his additions. But after the 4th time, it's starting to get ridiculous. Can you provide any help over there?

Thanks.

Liam Patrick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis Liam Patrick (talk)

I just noticed that someone named "Antique Rose" stepped in an reverted the article back to what it was. I hope this new editor isn't bent on trying to start an edit war. Thanks.

Liam Patrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)