User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 5

Pseudoscience vandalism

Sorry, which pages do you mean? As far as I know, I've never vandalized a page. --Iantresman 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you call this? Metamagician3000 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is interesting. Despite my name appearing under the edit, I can assure you that I nothing to do with this edit. Nothing in my edit history suggests anything like this.
I did indeed make an edit "Final decision clarification" which queried some issues, and as with all my posts, I double checked that it went through successfully.
Either there was a glitch on the system (unlikely), or someone with privileges greater than mine, has modified my edit.
I am sure that Wikipedia keeps an extensive log, and it should be possible to check this edit with the IP address of the person who made it.
I may not agree with everyone, but I'm not stupid. I'd have nothing to gain from such an edit... it would be reverted, and obviously a record would point to me.
I believe that Administrators have more extensive tools to check this out. Do you know how I can go about this? --Iantresman 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 has just posted a note saying that a weird post happened to him too. Odd that mine appeared to be appropriately inappropriate. --Iantresman 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're basically saying that your account has been hacked or something similar? If that's the truth of it, it exonerates you of course, but it's a serious situation that can't be allowed to remain like that for your own sake. If it happened to me, I'd quickly change my password, then seek advice about what else I should do from someone with higher powers, like one of the arbitrators or one of the bureaucrats - perhaps by e-mail if you don't want discussion all over the wiki. I do admit I was surprised that you'd make such an edit; it seemed out of character. Whatever else is alleged about you, I've never seen you do anything remotely like this in the past.

[After edit conflict]. Hmmmm, someone needs to get to the bottom of this. Metamagician3000 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken my comments to the talk page of the decision. That seems like the best place for discussion now that there are other people involved. I do accept that this action would have been out of character, so sorry to accuse you of it ... though of course I don't blame myself, either, as the record was clear. Something or someone has caused problems for several of us. Metamagician3000 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for something we had no control over. I don't think my account was hacked... my actual edit was replaced by the vandalized text. And I'm pretty sure that my original edit appeared as expected, as I always check my posts. It is not possible to hack an account, and replace one edit with another. Which leads me to suspect a glitch in the system, or someone with system privileges. --Iantresman 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... given that you did actually make an edit which didn't appear, hacking of your account seems to be ruled out. Also, I seriously doubt that it was malice by someone with higher-than-admin system privileges. Given that something odd also happened to Thatcher, I now think we should just write it off as a technical glitch. Metamagician3000 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caution violation ?

The recent "Pseudoscience" Arbitration decision has ScienceApologist down for a caution (I'm on Probation). The latter has a one-page explanation, but I can find nothing on what the implications are, for being cautioned.
I am already in disagreement with ScienceApologist over the inclusion of a quote in the Redshift quantization article, see the discussion "POV" in Talk:Redshift quantization, where he finally agreed to restored a particular quote. But he disagreed again, and rather than correct it himself, has deleted it yet again, and added some more conditions.
The caution notes that it is "in spirit as well as letter". I feel that the recent exchange is not. Since I am on probation, I don't want to rock the boat unnecessarily. Am I being unreasonable to mention it? --Iantresman 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see the caution it is just that - he is cautioned against engaging in personal attacks, incivility, etc., and there are also findings that some of his past edits were over the line. He has not been placed on probation, so technically he is no different position from that of any other editor, but he has been made to understand that some of his past behaviour could have consequences if repeated. As far as I can see, however, he is currently being civil on the relevant talk page. I don't think you're being unreasonable mentioning your concern to me, but I see no real issue of conduct here, as opposed to disagreements about content. If I've missed something, tell me - but that's how I see it right now. Metamagician3000 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure to give support to a great editor and fine admin. In my opinion, you have been totally exonerated in the past incidents that have caused controversy, but I guess any controversy is likely to blight people's candidatures for something as sensitive as arbcom. Metamagician3000 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated..if there is anything you need, never hesitate to ask.--MONGO 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. I have nothing against you, though I do think you are too controversial for a position on the Arbcom at this time. I might vote for you at some future time. Metamagician3000 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on indents

Thanks for that. Must admit, I'm curious about who you are - another Aus writer - I wonder if I know you... Adambrowne666 01:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might. :) Metamagician3000 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, X! - just found your blog...Adambrowne666 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it'd be easy for you, in all the circs. :D Metamagician3000 03:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have to do another Vlado's evening - maybe early next year....Adambrowne666 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Metamagician3000 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSV

The new intro looks good! I'm trying to find a copy of the Catholic RSV to photograph the cover. After the New Year, I plan to do a source audit of the article. I still have the sources mentioned. Thanks for your help! - Thanks, Hoshie 08:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think that one thing it needs is some general (sourced) observation about how popular the RSV is now, as the article implies in the opening sentence that it is not so popular as it once was, and is to some extent of historical interest. If so, some very concise reference in the lead to its current level of popularity would be good, with maybe something slightly less concise in the body of the article (including a brief mention of newer edition(s)). What do you think? Metamagician3000 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now handled one of these issues in a simple way. Metamagician3000 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins

Hi Metamagician3000, thanks for your message... Re: FA, I've been thinking about taking this to FAC for a while, but, although I think the rest of the article is ready, I simply don't think the Evolutionary biology sub-section is adequate. I've been meaning to re-write it but I feel like I have to re-read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype (at a minimum) before I could do so, and I simply haven't the time. If you can help, that'll be great!

I liked your copy edit of Dawkins, thanks for that. On the blockquotes: I personally prefer cquote (there is no consensus on whether it is preferred or not, see talk:cquote and it's TfD) but I'm certainly not going to have an article-level dispute about whether it is preferable to <blockquote>. Anyhow, hope to work with you on Dawkins! Mikker ^(...) 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some considerable time since I read those books. I'll see if there's anything I can contribute, but that part of the article didn't seem too thin to me. Meanwhile, I support your views on the Wedge Strategy talk page, though it's not an issue worth us going to war about. Metamagician3000 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your comments on talk:wedge document, and I agree with them. When I have more energy again I'll try to post something in support. Mikker ^(...) 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'm not sure it's worth a lot of effort. Metamagician3000 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisprudence

Thanks for your message, and also for doing some more cleaning up on top with the jurisprudence article. Merry Xmas, ho ho ho, etc :) Wikidea 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, too. Metamagician3000 10:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life

Second Life is a Featured article candidate! frummer 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Although I've contributed to this a fair bit, I don't think it's yet ready to be a featured article. However, I'll be fascinated to see what comes of the listing. Metamagician3000 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up some more but it might be advisable to send it to peer review. Metamagician3000 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would appreciate you cleaning up more of the article and involving more editors! can do? I'll do some copyediting myself. Then perhaps we can renominate it. frummer 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't take it much further - you'll see that I've done a quite major clean-up over the last few days, with a bit of minor restructuring and some fairly bold pruning. I'll sleep on it and come back to it tomorrow, but I think we need to find editors with enough subject matter expertise to either find citations or else bite the bullet and agree to delete some of the sentences with citation tags. Metamagician3000 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well perhaps you find these editors, its also imprtnt to welcome new ones. try the {{welcome123}} template to welcome them. frummer 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]