User talk:Michaelbusch/talkarchive1

Re: Jumbling Vanalism Again??

I have read the terms mike. You take out my edits claiming "bias", yet allow "They are best known for their lively and witty performances along with an original sound." This is just a "biased". You nor I can prove that they are "witty" or maintain some sort of "original sound", no more than you can prove the statements I wrote that you have omitted. make up your mind pleae. And please stop correcting an article maybe two people veiw a year. Thanks.

I've flagged the entire article as unencyclopedic and nominated it for deletion, because, as you say, it is biased and low-traffic. That an article is low-traffic is not a reason to not correct it, although it may be a reason to remove it. There have been many requests that editors pay more attention to such articles. Michaelbusch 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You make wikipedia fun for all.

Re: Jumbling Towers Vandalism

Hey Mike. I have noticed that you ignorantly removed my section and review information from the Jumbling Towers wiki article. My buddy Tyler and I keep this up (seeing as we both wrote it) to date as more reviews/achievments/information becomes available on the band. We (the band and I) are childhood friends. I would not "vandalize" something about my comrades that I wrote. That's proposterous. You are attacking the very people who are adding truth and credibility to wikipedia. Nothing on their page is advertisment, it is band reviews and anything else the guys decide to delve into. Thanks.

I ask that you please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Michaelbusch 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Michaelgotta

I'm sorry you feel like I'm vandalizing Wikipedia Michaelbusch, but I wasn't. My edit on Angels was very much truthful. I have a friend that is an Angelologist and told me all about what she has studied. I was trying to make a real contribution. The red hair edits were by my friend messing around, and he logged into my account. And by the way, I have no idea where Herndon is, such as its state or any major cities by it, and I don't use RoadRunner internet service. Are you stalking someone in Herndon????--Michael 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelgotta"

Response posted at User talk:Michaelgotta:

You may have a problem. The IP 71.79.152.73, which traces to a RoadRunner address in Herndon, VA, was used to vandalize the Red hair article, leaving the name "Mike Gotta" in various inappropriate locations. Similarly, edits listed to you (see [[1]]) on the Red Hair article constitute vandalism. I was wondering if there was a connection. It is possible that there is a duplicate user name or it may merely be a coincidence.

I am afraid that your recent edits to Angel do constitute vandalism, under Wikipedia:Vandalism concerning addition to nonsense and non-NPOV material. "My friend told me" does not constitute a reliable source or, more applicable in this case, evidence for widely-held opinion. The style of writing also needs work (please see Wikipedia:Style. I also wonder why IP 24.154.210.229, which traces to Armstrong Cable Services, vandalized the Angel article in a manner similar to your recent edits.

Your edits to St. Vincent - St. Mary High School do follow Wikipedia policy.

I am out of my depth here. I will place notice of this problem to the Admins. I apologize for the confusion and any offense. Michaelbusch 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I make my post about angels from a reliable source? It's her field of study, and I think she knows more about what she is talking about than someone that just says something about the root meaning of angel or something. I won't re-post it until I know how to make it reliable then. There must either be a duplicate user name about the service because I don't even know where Herndon, VA is. I still think its bad you can track people like that, and you should stop. Where someone lives is their personal business, and you shouldn't be able to figure that out from an IP address. Please stop trying to figure out where I'm from. I forgive you, but I don't think it's your position to threaten to block me, either, unless you're an admin. Thanks for your concern.--Michael 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be citable, verifiable, and not speculative. So, for example, it is entirely reasonable to give a history of angels as they appear in the Judeo-Christian, Islamic, or Zoroasterian traditions, but it is not at all reasonable to give a paragraph of speculation based on depictions of angels in Renaissance-style Western European paintings, unless it is part of a discussion of depictions of angels in Art.

Note: Concerning IP-tracing: this is an infrequently used but trivial command in networking, most commonly used to locate malfunctioning machines. Because you have registered as a user of Wikipedia, your edits can no longer be traced to a particular IP.

It is Wikipedia policy to allow users to warn suspected vandals of blocks. However, only Admins can enforce blocks. Currently, User:Konstable is investigating what has happened. Michaelbusch 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Michaelgotta

I have looked at this guy, the "my friend hacked into my account" excuse is the oldest excuse in the vandal handbook. So it was definitely him I say. But he seems to be making decent edits now, so I would just let him be and watch him for now. I will blacklist him on IRC for the bots.--Konst.able^Talk 10:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: C-type Asteroid Compositions

I don't know what I've been thinking when I mixed up those words, thanks for fixing them... I'll probably replace the current asteroid templates at some point in the future, so I can fix the words at the same time. Unfortunately, I ought to do more acute and important business (like writing my thesis), so I don't know soon I can start that.

PS. Please don't clear your talk page; it makes replying to older comments difficult.--JyriL ^talk 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

Hi Michael,

I notice you removed a talk section over at Talk:2 Pallas that was made partly reduntant by your subsequent post. Presumably just to clean things up and make it easier to read for later, but the usual procedure is just to append "the latest word" at the end of the section - or make a new section at the end that deals with the issue (You might want to check out WP:TPG). Some people find it annoying when their old comments are removed without asking :-)

By the way, your edits to the asteroids are much appreciated! Looks like you're pretty well informed on the issue. Deuar 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input at User_talk:Kheider#Occulation_Chords. -- Kheider 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ecliptic coordinates

Yes, indeed ecliptic coordinates are much more sensible and much more used. I used to put only them into the articles I edited, but other editors complained because they're more used to the RA/DEC coordinates. We could have a go at revamping them to straight ecliptic coords again and see if there is a cry of protest (there's probably a dozen or two articles to do). Deuar 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

William Herschel

Michael,

With regards to whether William Herschel was considered an "amateur astronomer", I have to respectfully disagree. There is a considerable number of references to him being regarded as an amateur,[2][3][4][5] including the Encyclopædia Britannica. If you have a good reference to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. labeling Herschel as an amateur astronomer: if he had lived today, I would certainlly have no problems labeling him as such. The problem is that except for a very limited number of universities and a few wealthy patrons, all astronomers at the time were amateurs in the modern sense (Herschel is perhaps the best known). So it is really a matter of semantics. I would prefer to reference William Herschel, without any qualifiers, but that is strictly a stylistic choice.

No matter. I have some lingering disagreement with your viewpoint, but we'd just be arguing over a minor matter. Have a good one. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Juno

Yes, I do have a larger version of the GIF animation. I had cropped the images to save space, which is for WP is not such a big problem. Thanks for the feedback! Awolf002 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2003 EL61

Hiya - it applied to the main article... the talk page lost me even more! Lots of the technical items have wikilinks which are great, but also several don't, which could probably do with a bit of explanation. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Great work, I've removed the tag. --PopUpPirate 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the good fight

I see you've been fighting the good fight against Celestia images over at 1 Ceres. They seem to have become a plague all over the place recently. At least there has been partial respite from Trans-Neptunian nicknames after Eris got its proper name. ;-) Cheers! Deuar 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Popper's comment in the "Dwarf Planets" discussion

Hi Michael, I am Michael Popper's son in law, and I wanted to explain why I posted his "Soapbox" response in the Dwarf Planets discussion page. Mr. Popper is a 73 year old former architect, with great interest in astronomy. He had thought of the idea of re-classifying planets in the manner which he described years ago and the recent decision regarding Pluto convinced him to publish it. As Mr. Popper underwent serious surgery a week and a half ago, I was given the task of publishing this paragraph, and couldn't think of a better place than Wikipedia. I see why you would see this new classification idea as "Soapbox" material, but I really must publish this somewhere to make Mr. Popper happy and I have no other ideas regarding where to publish this piece.

I hope you understand the situation.

Best regards, Tal Ayalon

Re: references to Ceres

Please hold off on reverting the asteroids before you read the reference! --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you revert, please read (and discuss) the info - it's quite clear. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit the mistake and restore everything, but I want to discuss it first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you hold off as well. Let's take five minutes and resolve this. As I said, I'm more than willing to admit it if I've made a mistake. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a page from the MPC: [6]. They break down objects into "planets", "dwarf planets", and then "asteroids" etc. Ceres is listed under "dwarf planets". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You stated "calling it an asteroid is meaningful, because that describes the evolutionary process that the object has been through." I don't disagree that including the term "asteroid" is an important component of describing Ceres. Believe me, I'm not one to suddenly "forget" the past just because a new term comes along. However, I do believe in using the terminology as defined by the governing body for a particular field. You also said "Similarly, Pluto and Eris should first be called 'plutino' and 'scattered disc object' and then be called dwarf planets. I dislike meaningless terminology." This is where we differ, as I don't think it is our place (or Wikipedia's) to "define" what the correct term is for an object. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael: thank you for discussing this matter. I also appreciate that you so clearly outlined your position on this matter:

"Re. naming conventions: you are correct that Wikipedia should not dictate terminology. I am perhaps biased in this respect, being both human and a planetary scientist. That said, I can confidently say that few scientists will call Ceres a dwarf planet."

I appreciate the effort - there have been a lot of astronomy-related debates that have devolved into rather aggressive arguments lately. Further to your suggestion, I agree that it would be good to keep this subject open for discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vulcanoids

Actually, asteroids or planetoids are minor planets, according to the article. Minor planets in our solar system are now termed dwarf planets. Mrwuggs 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be fairly up on the dwarf thing; do you know if there are any hypothetical dwarf planets you can add to the list? Mrwuggs 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. And unlike with Lilith, there are not more and one hypothsized body of its same type in the system. Probably the category is not useful until someone comes forward with and idea about ours being a 3 star system. Mrwuggs 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 10 revert

I see that you reverted my recent changes to the Apollo 10 "Crew" section. My changes were a result of some discussion in the Space missions WikiProject. I have received a few comments since my changes and I'm inviting everyone with interest to join that discussion so we can build consensus on how best to present all the information in question.
--3Idiot 13:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vesta

Surely, though, even if the discussion on MPC numbers is too long, the symbol ought to be there? I explains why there's several forms of the symbol (different ways of simplifying a very complex original). Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, aye, it got a little long. Added in just the most relevant part, which clarifies instead of complicating. Minor Planet numbers probably deserve their own article, which my original sketching out would fit in better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid Symbols

From B.A. Gould. It's in the image information - click on the symbol and I give a potted history for each one in the description. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Query: I am right in thinking that drawing a symbol which was described, but, as far as is known, never drawn due to Gould's paper coming out soon after the symbol was proposed, would be horrible, horrible cruft, and that it would be better just to put, at most, the description into the article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Randi materials

It will take me a while (and I am in no hurry. I hate bats, rats, anacondas, spiders and other creepy things) to dig into my cold spooky archives to find the sources of my other stuff on Randi. The bullet proof vest, the attempt to burn Randi's records, hit man for scientific blah blah, etc. I'll make an attempt soon? I think this material should be added because it shows Randi became a target. User:Kazuba 14 Oct 2006

Fahrenheit

I have again reverted your additions to the Fahrenheit article. They do not seem relevant to the article, and more importantly, are misleading. For many years, the American public educational system has been required to teach in SI, at least in the physical sciences, so saying that most Americans have "at most a cursory understanding of the Celsius scale" is at least bad wording and at worst completely incorrect. Saying that Americans "often find themselves bewildered and confused by weather reports in Celsius" is both uncited and very difficult to verify.

You may raise these issues on the article's talk page if you wish, but do not add the material back again without broad consensus. Michaelbusch 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate it if you would cease your blanket-reverting. "Broad consensus" is not required for NPOVing an article. And the article before I got there had an anti-Fahrenheit POV and tone. Phrases like "Fahrenheit supporters claim" should be avoided. When you say that someone "claims" something, the implication is that they're claiming something dubious. Words like assert are better and more neutral. I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia before, but I usually don't like to have a user name, as I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues. But just because I'm editing as an IP user doesn't give anyone carte blance to blanket revert good faith edits.

As for Americans' ignorance of celsius, you can mark that with an uncited tag if you like. Citations for that shouldn't be hard at all to find, and I can find some the next time I'm online. I don't know if you're American, or if you have much experience talking with Americans about this, but I am and I do. And yes, they do teach us celsius in school - for I'd say about a grand total of maybe a couple hours. So yeah, if we have a good memory, we'll know that 0 degrees is freezing, 100 is boiling, and maybe that 37 is body temperature, but if we come to Canada and hear on the weather forecast that it's gonna be 15 tomorrow, we're probably not gonna know what that is. It's like learning a new language, you can take a couple Spanish classes, but that doesn't make you a Spanish speaker.

Anyhow, please discuss this more before just reverting all the work that I've put into the article. Thank you.

~Fahrenheit User (Maybe I'll make this my new Wikipedia sn if it's not taken)

Note: Ckatz returned Fahrenheit to the version I have been maintaining at 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC), on grounds of removing America-centric material. I concur with this statement. Michaelbusch 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Space mining...

Re these edits well done... thanks for the updates. Mikker ^(...) 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Zoo

Since you opt to revert instead of discuss, I did for you. Please respond at Talk:Minnesota Zoo#List of animals. Cburnett 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of response: Listing even a quarter of the species at the zoo is excessive and pointless. I would approve of a list of a few of the most note-worthy, but the bulk aren't needed (like the beaver, the ermine weasel, or the peregrine falcon). Michaelbusch 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of response to response: you are reading into policy. Cburnett 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note:I have just heavily edited the Minnesota Zoo article to cut out material that should be in WikiTravel. Michaelbusch 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for some hard anti-vandal work :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Prabir Ghosh

Hi Michael, which are the specific areas or lines/sentences that you found lacking balance, or sounding like praise? That may help me to fix the places. Regards. <<This unsigned comment was added by User:Pinaki ghosh.>>

Moderately Red Spectral class

When a KBO's spectral class is called '(moderately red)' what does that mean? Does that mean it does not reflect well in the visible light but reflects better in the infrared? Or does it mean that object is reddish in color? 50000 Quaoar, 20000 Varuna, and 28978 Ixion are all listed as such. 38628 Huya says, "appears to be dark red, suggesting it is covered with ancient organic chemistry." Thanks -- Kheider 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Red' in this context means that the object is relatively more reflective in the red and near-infrared than in the blue (the reflectance spectrum slopes upward toward red). Such spectra on outer solar system objects are often caused by organic compounds, such as tholins. However, to the unaided eye these objects would be brownish or black, because of their low albedos. Michaelbusch 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So on the plot (TNO Colors) I assume that both 1994 ES2 and 2001 KP77 would be red? -- Kheider 23:15, 2 November 2006

Yes. Redder objects have higher V-R and B-V. On this plot, (0,0) is equal magnitude in all three bands. This is not quite the same as a perfectly white, because the bands are broad, but a white object would be at (0,0). A blue object would plot at negative B-V and negative V-R. Michaelbusch 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So would 1994 ES2 be redder than 2001 KP77? -- Kheider Talk Page 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. 1994 ES2 has higher V-R, but much lower B-V. This means that ES2 has relatively more blue in its spectrum as compared to KP77. So if we looked only between V & R, ES2 would be more red, but if we looked only between B & V, KP77 would be redder. This simply is a problem with the definition of redness. Michaelbusch 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. -- Kheider 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sedna and Varuna Albedos

Hello Michael; I was wondering if you could answer a question for me on Talk:90377 Sedna. Thanks Kheider 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Nicely stated, and well done. Hopefully, it will make an impression. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...

You kinda got rid of my comments for the discussion page of the article "united nations". Can I get the reason(s) why? I dont think ur allowed to do that....mikeal 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize. I was reverting a vandal (66.199.192.2) who had deleted a lot of content. Apparently I reverted too far. Michaelbusch 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

thanx for the tip for my userpagemikeal 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ceres

Hi Michael,

You have recently reverted my edit to Ceres (dwarf planet). Your edit summary is just rv. Can I ask why you reverted? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because asteroid belt automatically refers to the main asteroid belt: there are no others in the solar system. There are other groups of asteroids, and there is the Kuiper Belt, but those are not the same thing. Michaelbusch 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not really what our article asteroid belt says: "It is termed the main belt when contrasted with other concentrations of minor planets, since these may also be termed asteroid belts. In this usage, it often refers only to the greatest concentration of bodies with semi-major axes between the 4:1 and 2:1 Kirkwood gaps at 2.06 and 3.27 AU, with eccentricities less than about 0.33, and with inclinations below about 20°." In fact, I have also seen the Kuiper Belt referred to as an asteroid belt, so a little clarity here would be good. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sacrament revert question

Hello.

You recently reverted my addition to the Sacrament article. Your summary just says 'rv.' What was your reasoning behind the action you took?

I do not think that the reference you added is appropriate for Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 22:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that it was inappropriate because it was an audio link, or because of the content of that link? --72.72.127.238 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Michaelbusch 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that audio links were inappropriate. My apologies. --72.72.127.238 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily, but they are to be used carefully. Michaelbusch 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can agree on that. --72.72.127.238 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

your user page

I just want to say that I saw your user page and I agree with it. You could add Alfred Wegener to Einstein, Tesla, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, if you are not aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience, you might be interested. However they are not very active. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointless?

I'm curious as to why you considered my contribution to (136108) 2003 EL61 "pointless". The provided information was not in the article, and I was providing a source. -unsigned, posted by ZacharyBurnham.

The nicknames for the objects have been known for the past two years (Mike and his students and everyone else in the department here has been using them, and they are posted on his website). Citing your personal conversation with Mike is not a proper citation, and is pointless. The article does give Blitzen as the nickname for the second moon. Michaelbusch 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if someone indicates that a statement is original research...

Hi, if someone indicates that a statement is original research, that implies the analysis is an unpublished argument, it doesn't imply the argument is false. Thanks, Addhoc 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of my removing the tag was that the citations for the argument is given later in the article. Michaelbusch 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

========JOHN TEDWARDS====

You're not a good editor.

== Artist Contributions ==

Hi Michael Busch,

I'm confused. My company is working on a science visualization project with Ann Druyan and she suggested I contribute some of my work to wikipedia. I'm a novice at this but I can't understand how contributing images are "vandalism". Could you help me out here? I read the wiki page you suggested and I can't for the life of me figure out where I was in error.

I'm a scientist, not a wiki expert. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

First rule of graphics on Wikipedia: only add them if they are useful. Your portrayal of Ceres is non-useful: it is just a textured sphere (we've had people adding similar pictures made using the program Celestia) and bears only a passing resembleance to the actual object, so it is deleted in the interests of clarity. Your portrayal of a carbon atom is actively misleading: even if you can see the orbitals, they don't look at all like that. Your graphic of a skull is fine as far as it goes, but replacing the labeled anatomy image with an unlabled CG is removal of content and vandalism, because you are removing something and putting something less informative in its place.

With regards to adding your own work to Wikipedia: you must be incredibly careful or you will hit conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This is what I meant by 'this is not a free gallery': you shouldn't go around posting your own graphics to articles without at least some support by other editors. The same applies to editing articles about yourself. Michaelbusch 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I added my blog address that the upload form asked for a link to my site for copyright purposes, to show that I did own the copyright in order to make the contribution. I really don't care if its on there. Is this what you mean? The only edit I've made to the article on me was fixing a broken link. I noticed it when I saw the page and corrected it. Was this inappropriate? The skull image was based on a hand digitized 3d model of a real skeleton and is extremely accurate. The contribution states that we should "be bold".

We're building an animation for a documentary that shows what it would be like to fly in from the edge of the Milky Way to Earth, flybys of planets, zooming in through the human body. I was planning on contributing a number of the stills to wikipedia because I believe it's a valuable resource. I don't need credit. Do I just upload the images and let other people post them? Sorry about all the questions. Thanks for your patience.

I merely made the comment about articles concerning you as a standard warning. So far you haven't done anything terribly inappropriate on that front. With regards to images: reading the above, someone could get the impression you are advertising your film. This would be blatant conflict of interest (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). I'm willing to accept that you are editing in good faith, but it is probably best if you don't any images by yourself. You could suggest images for inclusion in articles on the corresponding talk pages (something along the lines of 'I'm working on this for a film. Would it help the article?'). Concerning the skull: I was not saying that it is inaccurate, just that it is less informative for the reader to see a graphic than a labeled chart. Good luck with the documentary. It reminds me of the classic powers-of-ten exhibit. Michaelbusch 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Powers of Ten fully animated. If any of the images on http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com are useful, feel free to use them on wikipedia. I don't need a credit. There just my own storyboards for the animations.

Now I just noticed that the Wiki page for Bryan Brandenburg is being deleted. Was this for contributing images?

There are concerns about WP:COI and the article being unencyclopedic. It is not related to your adding images. Michaelbusch 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryan's images

Could I talk you into not tagging Mr. Brandenburg's images for speedy deletion? Unless you have reason to doubt that he has the authority to release them under the GFDL, they are properly licensed images that we may be able to use in the future (although possibly not in the articles he wants to add them to, currently). If the images are inaccurate or not useful (like the Ceres one may be, according to your comments above), nominate them for deletion. I'd rather not see you and he get into a conflict over some images that may, in fact, be of use to the project. CSD #I5 is actually only for unfree images. -- nae'blis 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not immediately tag future images uploaded by Bryan. Michaelbusch 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Main asteroid belt

Hi, ok - I wasn't aware of that, I'll fix up the wording in Sylvia in a moment. The terminology in a couple of articles probably needs some tweaking as well. What about high inclination groups, like e.g. 2 Pallas? To what degree do they get referred to as the main belt? Cheers, Deuar 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything with semi-major axis between that of Mars and Jupiter and inclination less than say 45º would be classed as an MBA (the inclination cutoff is fuzzy). Certainly Pallas is in the belt. Michaelbusch 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

gravitational tractor

Hi. The new version looks good.

Best wishes,

Robinh 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

completing the square

I am puzzled by your questioning the relevance of the new section I added to completing the square. It is relevant because it is about completing the square. And it explicitly says so. If you think that's incorrect, why don't you say that, rather than acting as if you haven't read the new section. Michael Hardy 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see you want an edit war, expressing your arguments ONLY in edit summaries. Articles should demonstrate, when possible, that topics are broader than what the reader was taught in school as a child. This is one such case. Michael Hardy 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested third opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not want an edit war. I want additions like this to be supported by consensus before they are added. This addition is not directly related to the point of the article. Broadness is fine (although the proof you provide is not terribly broad). Math with no apparent purpose is not (i.e. why should we care that you can prove that 1/x + x >= 2 ? And why should that go in this article?). I don't think it adds anything of substance to the article, and it makes the article more confusing (at least to me). IF there were consensus, I would not object. Thank you for putting out the request. Michaelbusch 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal

Yes I was being a bit naughty before, but I don't think I did anything this time. I will stop writing silly things. Thanx for warning me. Sorry about the wikicook book thing, I didn't realise there already was one, and I didn't know how else to show my ideas. Asteroidz R not planetz 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikicook book was fine. What was not fine was your making articles, re-directs, and templates which are wordy, inaccurate, and outmoded by previous articles. Also not fine is adding blatant nonsense to articles, which you have done once since setting up your present account. Please review Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas and Wikipedia:Style.

Additional note: I have nominated a template you created, Template:Peeerreview, for deletion. You are mis-using the template feature, which is designed to add text to a large number of articles. Also, its title != its subject. This may also be considered a repost of deleted content. Michaelbusch 17:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise exactly what the peeerreview thing does. I didn't think it was as detailed. Sorry, I'm new, I didn't mean to cause you so much trouble. Thanx for asking me about it before you autoblocked me Asteroidz R not planetz 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just a template. Michaelbusch 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal either; I removed the reference to JZ Knight in the first paragraph because it implies negative systemic bias. The details of creators/ contributors to the film may be included elsewhere in the article, not anecdotally in the first few sentences. This article is still very much lacking in it's neutrality. what is your role? Do you work for wikipedia? I apologize if my editing of the article appeared to be vandalism. I ensure you it was not intended. I am neither for or against the topic of the article in question, I was simply correcting a clear error in NPOV. 14:41, 28 November 2006

The blatant vandalism was not removing the reference to JZ Knight. It was deleting the text relating to criticism of the movie. The movie has had more publicity from that than on its own. I do not think the article is NPOV. I admit to bias to purge pseudoscience from Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, immediate criticism in the article with no references or citation implies bias. Such information must be placed under separate headings further along in the article. Stating one side of an argument in the first few sentences is not acceptable. And if such statements are to be made, references and citations must be provided, of which there are still none. You have just told me that my deletions were vandalism due to the 'fact' that the film has received more attention for criticism than praise; can you cite any statistical references? If so please include them in the article. If not, it is conjecture, and should not be admitted. Again, what is your role with wikipedia? Are you a private citizen? If your goal is to push your own take on 'the truth' you are doing the wikipedia community a disservice. You are accusing others of vandalism, when you yourself are exacting bias for your own agenda. This article is not the place to enforce your own views. It is on a controversial film. If this film contains material you do not agree with, by all means create an "Arguments" section. But policing how the article is edited to suit your own paradigm is an abuse of power. 15:07, 28 November 2006

I have added a reference. My role on Wikipedia is simply to watch the portrayal of science and pseudoscience and make sure that this is accurate. This is a positive bias, because it leads to a better, more reliable, encyclopedia. I am only a grad student at Caltech, but this is Wikipedia. All editors are equal, with the possible exception of Jimbo Wales and the sysops. Michaelbusch 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Umm how come you acused me of being a vandal at my page?--"P-Machine" 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not. Those are the warnings I posted to User talk:Adopter, because of his vandalizing your pages. I copied them to you so that you knew about them. Michaelbusch 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks i think that the guy is a sock puppet of user bigblackguy890--"P-Machine" 05:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know, but the account has been blocked. Michaelbusch 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You saw his page about (vandilizing wikipedia is my anti drug) i mean that is just crazy i cannot tell if he was trying to offend wikipedia or be funny or both. well thanks--"P-Machine" 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Crop Circles

The NPOV tag is put there because of the flame war. The debate is over POV, is it not? Might as well inform the general public about it... iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the tag is that it at some level implies an argument, as opposed to Tommysun's essentially one-man crusade. I also dislike calling attention to flaming. I find it embarassing to the encyclopedia. But I do see your point. Michaelbusch 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've debated with Tommy for a while... and it just really gets tired after a while how he can't accept the fact that there are people out there that don't follow his POV. Sad, really, but that's Wikipedia for you. Anyways, if there is NPOV at any point, the tag should be there. You never know how the article will be edited next. If Tommy makes an edit we would think there is NPOV, if we make an edit Tommy will think there is NPOV, so yeah. I don't know how to get it settled though... iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 08:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ruby Falls

Just a note but there are no citations with the height of the falls or anything like that either, in addition the citation I have is several former employees word, I do not know how I would provide documentation. It was not intended as vanalism more so as enlightenment for future tourists.

Centrist Party

You might want to know that someone promptly removed your NPOV tag. I also find the article a bit puffy, though I'll admit I can't quickly pin down any POV statements. You might want to restore the tag and expand on your talk page remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You

You are the most horrid person I have ever had the misfortune to come across! Vandals like you do not belong on wikipedia! Sending people messages saying they've done something they haven't done is one thing, but threatening to block them is another! I hate you! grrrrrrrrrrrrr! You will spend an awfully long time in Purgatory! Rid yourself of me! You low-lifed, sycophatic, superlatively somniferous nimcompoop! Get out of my life! Good Riddance!!! Just plain evil 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

? Michaelbusch 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology acepted. Just plain evil 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of events: I had placed a warning to a vandal on a shared IP that Just plain evil was also using. Michaelbusch 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Michael!

I ran across your name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and was interested to see (on your user page) that you're studying at Caltech. I'm an alumnus (Lloydie, 1973). I'm not sure if you want it or not, but you could use one of these: {{User Caltech}}.

You have written a very nice description of the problems with "pseudo science". You also endure quite a bit of abuse from vandals. You deserve a word of encouragement. Thank you for working so hard to make the Wikipedia a better resource for people everywhere. DavidCBryant 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And I like the user box. Michaelbusch 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Hi, you could be interested in this... Addhoc 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am interested. Thanks for the information. Michaelbusch 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For your info, 209.244.42.3 posting on Talk:Crop circle is almost certainly just Tommy and not a newcomer. --BillC 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect as much, but thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Michaelbusch 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburg AfD Feedback Request

Hi, I was wondering if you had any constructive discussion to add to the Bryan Brandenburg deletion nomination. The nomination has been relisted due to lack of editor comments, so any discussion (for or against) which may lead to a consensus is welcome. Thanks. Dallben 08:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Organi Studios

Hey, I saw that you put a {{bv}} template on User_talk:Organi Studios. I was watching this user, which is something I do when I notice a string of vandalism or vanity so I can check back the next day to see if anything new has to be reverted. When I checked the user's contributions to remember which guy this was, however, I only saw one edit that wasn't blatant vandalism. Do you remember if this user had blatant vandalism edits that were deleted, like starting inappropriate articles that were speedied? Mistaking WP:YFA for the place to start articles is unfortunately very common, so it's more of a newbie mistake than blatant vandalism. Anyway, I was just curious if you remember anything worse, or if it would be okay if I removed the {{bv}} warning for being overly harsh and replaced it with {{vanity}}. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. Organi Studios has only made one edit, which was to replace YFA with what looks a lot like an advertisement, but I have no problem with giving the benefit of the doubt. Michaelbusch 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

talk: Project Orion

Sorry, but I partially removed my own comments. I refused of some my words, to make an emphasis on the others, that's all. So it's not a vandalism. Thank you. ellol 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AGF

Howdy! I saw your edit here and wanted to drop you a quick note. 'Vandalism' is a bit harsh, it looked more like someone experimenting with or learning how to use Wikiediting. Check out WP:AGF if you haven't already, and try to avoid biting new folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellol is hardly a newcomer, but I see your point. I'm afraid I've developed bad habits from too much counter-vandalizing (if we can make this a word). Michaelbusch 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Man

I understand how a pop song is interpreted is very important to you. Lots of people have strong emotional attachments to particular items, such that they dislike contrary views. However, on Wikipedia, we tend to defer to the compromise solution of representing all points of view. This minor policy is called NPOV. I will not argue the point, as its just an interpretation, but I take no shortage of pleasure in reminding people that it is a great error to think Wikipedia should value pruning more than planting. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the article, and I understand your last point. Thank you for the reminder. But I must give you one in turn. In this instance, you did not follow NPOV, because you deleted the common interpretation and put what I assume is your own in its place. More generally, neutral point-of-view is not the same as presenting all points of view. Please remember the caveats: 'all significant views that have been published by a reliable source'. This is why I asked for citations. Michaelbusch 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, about the points to be included. But citatiousness isnt the issue with interpretations as much as consensus and inclusion of what people assert are the common ones. Its not a science and so the process can look messy to those who look for authoritative interpretations. ("Show me a quote" is too often an epithet anyway). Where there are no autorities to correct us, we assert what can be agreed on. Consensus requires an attitude of m:inclusionism rather than m:deletionism and thats something I perhaps overlooked in writing over the one-dimensional interpretation. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

First off, I stand corrected on the copyright for the McAullife article. I am new to Wiki and didn't see that the refs that were coming from Framingham.com had been copied from NASA. On your second note, regarding "legal threats," you were off base a bit. I wasn't threatening anything, I was implying that if this was a blatant copyright violation that someone else might be upset. If that wasn't clear I apologize. I was just on the lookout for bad articles. 68.163.222.28 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well enough. However, please avoid language such as 'before action is taken'. That implies that you are going to do something. Michaelbusch 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Prabir Ghosh article

Hi Michael, Pinaki here. I visited your site yesterday. U seem to have an interesting subject to study...asteroids! In fact I am currently writing a novel, where there is a scene at the climax, where hundreds of meteors shower. Can u help me, letting me know whether meteorites & asteroids are the same thing? Is it possible for hundreds of meteors to shower? (I had myself in 1998 seen hundreds of meteros showering). What is the scientific cause of this phenomenon? On the other issue...I noticed that u did some editing with my father's article...Prabir Ghosh. I believe it has been nutralized after the editing. so, does it need that tag anymore? If u think 'yes', what other changes do u suggest? I invite u to make those changes. Regards, Pinaki Ghosh

Meteorite = piece of asteroid that hit the ground. Meteor shower = bunch of meteorites hitting the upper atmosphere at once. They come from comets. This information is available in Wikipedia. For your father's article, see Talk:Prabir Ghosh, under NPOV tag. There have been no edits to the article to neutralize it (since the addition of the tags). I have not made edits, because if I were to do so, there would be little article left. Michaelbusch 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Michael for the info. I'll rewrite the article; but currently a bit busy with my novel...maybe in a few days time. Pinaki Ghosh

The Prabir Ghosh article material was borrowed from the website www.srai.org which is owned by my father (it is his organization's website). So this second vandalism warning thing is meaningless and uncalled for. In fact now you are vandalizing my works, Michael. Pinaki Ghosh

Uncredited use of copyrighted material, no matter who it is from or who is adding to Wikipedia, constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Copyvio. You cannot post material from your father's website uncredited and I cannot post text from my papers uncredited. With regards to 'vandalizing your works': I was not the one who determined that copyvio had taken place (check the logs on the article) and your contributions to Wikipedia are not 'your works'. Contributions to Wikipedia are automatically licensed to the public domain and are free to be edited. There are restrictions on your User page, but that is about it. I suggest again that you review and understand Wikipedia policy. Michaelbusch 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me about Wikipedia poloices; I'll find out more about the policies that's for sure. But I have a growing feeling that you are turning Wikipedia into a battlezone of an age old battle between theists and athiests, and the article on athiest-leader being scraped off from Wikipedia only proves my fear that athiests are under attack from people who apparantly hate athiests. In fact athiests, contrary to the popular belief have as much morality as God fearing people, if not more. My father could have used his talents to be rich, but he chose to spend all his earnings behind teaching the poorest people of India not to go to witch/quack doctors, to break the supertitious beliefs of people that was a hinderence to progress. His challenge is an eye-opener for everyone who dwell in doubt. I see the attack on Prabir Ghosh article as an attack on all athiests across the world, and will appeal all the rationalists and athiests through our journals in India and over the world to protest against this attack on athiests in Wikipedia. Pinaki Ghosh

I do not think I or any other editors have done anything like what you describe. There has been no attack on your father's article, the man himself, athiests, or you. We (myself and the other editors who have commented on the article) are merely holding the article to the standards of Wikipedia, nothing more and nothing less. I suspect that most of the editors on the article are without strong religious convictions. I personally approve of your father's work, and have long been an admirer of James Randi and Carl Sagan. Please do not make a fool of yourself by assuming malice. Wikipedia asks all editors to assume good faith. You should review Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. If you persist in acting as you have, I will have to refer you to the Admins, who are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia policy. Michaelbusch 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Water crystal formation

Hi, as I have posted on the What the Bleep discussion board, I have added an expansion to water crystal formation section, which you deleted. The reason stated was poor sourcing. I have used a scholarly article as the main reference for the expanded material. Please explain your decision to edit out the water section in the What the Bleep discussion page. Until then I will restore the previous version of the page. Thanks

AS 61.68.191.123 13:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted again. Your edits are bollocks. See the article's talk page. Michaelbusch 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I am not following my watchlist very closely at the moment, so if you need a revert (in order to avoid violating 3RR yourself) leave me a message on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Watchlists

Hi Michael, I have answered your request here. Please vote, then perhaps the feature will be implemented sooner. ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 14:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Been watching you on the What the Bleep Page, I don't do much there, just keep an eye on the dialogue.

I would love your input on the Transcendental Meditation page. Timidguy, who you met on What the Bleep is the main pro-TM editor there, and anyway, and now we're getting to sticky stuff around WP:RS around scientific studies, which is a bit over my head.

It looks like debunking pseudoscience is a hobby and a forte of yours, so I wanted to invite ya over. Sethie 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Younger Ph.Ds?

I noticed you updated the Kim Ung-Yong article since there have been, according to you, persons who have recieved their Ph.Ds before the age of 15. Can you give me a link to a source verifying this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.233.102 (talk • contribs)

I did not say that. I said that I suspected that there have been such cases, and so reverted the article to avoid possibility of error. List of child prodigies lists several cases of graduate degrees granted before age 15, although doctorates are not specified. I personally know of several students who may aquire doctorates before they reach 15. However, I will not divulge their names on Wikipedia. Such a lack of reporting is common, to avoid excessive media attention. This also makes locating the youngest PhD almost impossible, which is a good thing. Michaelbusch 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No es culpa mia, si no sabes ni papa de español. You must learn spanish.

This article is uncategorized. 

Please help improve this article by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles (how?). Please remove this tag after categorizing, but not before. This page has been tagged since December 2006.

Pedro Blanco Fernández de Trava, El Mongo de Gallinas, spaniard negrero neé in Malaga, was one of the most notorious white slave traders who established himself in the islands in the mouth of the Gallinas River, near the present Sierra Leone-Liberia border, in the early 1800’s.

Contents [hide] 1 Career 2 List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor 3 Sources 4 Links

Career Before investing in the slave trade, Blanco worked on a sugar mill in Cuba. Ship´s captain, son. He sailed to Africa on the Conquistador, one of his ships. He set up his slave business in 1822 with his partner Tomás Rodríguez Burón and by 1839 they controlled a network that fed Cuba’s insatiable hunger for slaves. Blanco, adding up the partner Pedro Martinez, rapidly expanded the scope of his operation by striking up a working relationship with King Shiakar Mana. He eventually had agents stationed at Cape Mount, Shebar, Digby, Yougn Sestos and elsewhere. Blanco entered a partnership also with Carballo with a center of operations in Havana and other departments in Puerto Rico, Trinidad, and Texas. Later, incresing the Society with Francisco Martí y Torrens, and Pedro Juan Zulueta de Ceballos, his mercantile standing was so high, that credit bills were enthusiastically accepted in New York, London and many other well-known financial centers. In Gallinas, he built himself a private kingdom with storehouses on an island, his personal space and office on another island, and houses for his African wives on yet another island. Slaves awaiting shipment were housed on the islands of Taro and Kamasun. In 1838, Blanco left Africa for Cuba and then on to Barcelona, all the while trading slaves. He left Gallinas just before most of the Amistad Africans reached the coast, but he left behind a network of representatives to carry on his business. It is very possible that some of them handled the Amistad Africans. At any rate, he played a vital part in the development of the slave trade in this region. His firm went under in 1848; and in 1854 he passed away in Genoa.

List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor From January to November of 1840. By english commandant Denman, to Sierra Leona Gobernor.

USA, Lisa Dalvison 200 Tn. USA, Theopleidas Chan 160 Tn. USA, Alejander 200 Tn. USA, Seminole 100 Tn. USA, Crannfort 300 Tn. USA, Warbely 200 Tn. Hamburguer, Argus 100 Tn. French, Antonie Feriol 109 Tn. French, Jeune Frederike 200 Tn.

Sources Adam Jones, From Slaves to Palm Kernels: A History of the Galinhas Country (West Africa), 1730-1890 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983)

Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997)

UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA, DOLORES GARCÍA CANTÚS, Departamento de Historia Contemporanea. Fernando Poo: Una Aventura Colonial Española En El África Colonial (1778-1900) Servei de Publicacions 2004.

Links http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf http://www.pdavis.nl/Gallinas.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Blanco" Categories: Uncategorized from December —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.97.173.119 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

? I merely removed material of dubious validity and terrible grammar. Note also that this is the English Wikipedia. It is true that I should learn Spanish, but that is because of living in southern California and observing at Arecibo. Michaelbusch 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You must to read, then to think, then to help, and then to act.

http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf

This one have fragments in french and english maybe you can understand something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.173.119 (talk • contribs)

The vandalism warning was because this is the English Wikipedia, and so it shall be written in English. You should also review the talk page guidelines, the Wikipedia manual of style, and sign your posts. Michaelbusch 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More on the Bleep

Like I've said before, I don't mind if Emoto is proved a hoax, however if such a claim is made I wanted to see some evidence. You keep saying that you have provided abundant references that would convince any reasonable person that Emoto's claims are false. All I have said is please provide these references to me so that I can have a look at them as well. I'd love to believe you, however this is an encyclopaedia and I want to see some basis to claims. I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking you to prove what you are saying - after all you are asking the same of me.

I have responded to your criticism of the method because I believed that you had reached incorrect conclusions based on incomplete knowledge of the case. I wasn't trying to be insulting, and merely responded to your accusations of poor experimental design and execution. In regards to author and journal discreditation (which are ad hominem arguments in themselves now that you mention it), again I am happy to believe you if you direct me to respected references that would state that it is in fact the case. All I want to do is examine the full body of evidence. Too my current knowledge and research there is something weird going on, and I provided the information in good faith because I genuinely believe that what I am saying is accurate. If you definitively believe otherwise I am more than happy to agree with you once I see that your position is based on solid evidence and research.

Please give me references to your claims of Dean being an incompetent scientist or Elviser Press being a poor scholarly journal (or both).

PS I'm in and out at the moment so my responses will not be rapid, as you have observed lately. Tinsue 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Caution

Regarding your use of the term "cruft" (trash) at Ceres (dwarf planet) in reference to another editor's work: The user Michaelbusch is cautioned against the use of derogatory terms. Personal dislike is not a valid or descriptive reason for making an edit. Please review Help:Edit summary. -- JEBrown87544 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Michaelbusch 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me stop Vandalism?

Hi Michael, can you please help me stop vandalism? Some one, or some group of people are vandalizing my userpage with dirty comments (I'd request to take a look; somehow I have a belief that you can stop vandalism) after my site The Freethinker became popular recently, hurting religious sentiments of some Hindu groups. These people somehow came to know ofmy Wikipedia link, and started showing their greviance by randomly vandalizing my user-page. Please help. --Pinaki ghosh 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a vandal warning on the IP address that has been vandalizing your user page. If they keep vandalizing, they will be blocked. Michaelbusch 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Michael. However I am concerned that whoever is doing so is doing so without signing in.--Pinaki ghosh 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful...

A friendly reminder not to inadvertently run afoul of WP:3RR when confronted with a difficult situation. Raymond Arritt 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Fortunately, reverting violations of 3RR is not in itself a violation. Michaelbusch 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I am annoyed by this, but alright. Michaelbusch 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[7] made on January 19 2007 to United Nations

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this block is at all justified, because I was merely enforcing Wikipedia policy by removing contenious material that was added without consensus (the editor who added it originally kept adding it back in defiance of request, while insisting that he was open to dialogue), and have the support of several editors in doing so. But it is simplest if I wait for it to expire. Michaelbusch 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Since William asked: I derive the policy of leaving an article as it was from the statements used in cases of editing disputes, in particular the page protection blocks. Michaelbusch 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From William M. Connolley talk page

I don't think you were justified in blocking my account. I was merely reverting vandalism of the article, although User:MichaelAusems has tried to frame it as an edit war. His edits are disruptive, inflammatory, and despite his changes, don't meet NPOV, Notability, or Relevance. I removed the edits and started a thread on the article's talk page. His response was to add his material back and say that he was open to dialogue, even though I (and now three other editors) had requested that he leave the material out until he had consensus. His statements also breached the boundaries of civility. This is vandalism, as it is disrupts Wikipedia and he is ignoring warnings.

In this situation, removing his material again consists of removing vandalism, and is therefore not a violation of 3RR. Therefore blocking me is un-necessary, and to some extent insulting. However, given that it will have probably expired by the time you read this, I don't particularly mind. Just be careful blocking: I have many other articles I need to keep an eye on, and it is annoying to not be able to fix them.

I will stay out of this UN article dispute as much as possible. But I will venture a prediction: shortly after the block you placed on him expires, User:MichaelAusems will add his material, in some contrived and contorted form, back to the article. It will be quickly removed by an editor, not me. He will add it back again and place more material on the talk page complaining that he is being victimized for editing the article, when he is vandalizing it. This will repeat until he is blocked again. I hope I am wrong, but this seems most likely. So please be prepared to hand him a longer block.

Since you asked: I derive the 'maintain page as it is in cases of dispute' policy from the rules associated with protection, where it says "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." MichaelAusems contests the current version of the page. We leave the page as it is until we decide how to resolve his concerns. Yes, I realize requesting protection would be the formal way to do this, but given that there is only one user involved, it seemed simpler to do it this way. Michaelbusch 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't edit anonymously while blocked. Its a very bad idea that will get your block extended by stricter admins. Secondly, your understanding of policy is wrong. It is not possible in an edit war to insist on keeping the pre-war version of a page and assert you have policy on your side. Thirdly, you must be very careful in claiming a vandalism exception for 3RR. Only blatant vandalism counts; what you are describing is not. Remember: if in doubt, don't risk 3RR. In fact, WP:1RR is a goal to aim for. Otherwise, see WP:DR William M. Connolley 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit any articles, only wrote on my talk page and your talk page, and signed all edits. That seems completely reasonable to me. This is merely a case of the definition of vandalism. I (and presumably the others who reverted MichaelAusems' edits) define vandalism one way, you define it another. That is fine. As I said, I will stay out of this dispute. But I think the entire idea of 3RR is rough: it is a good concept, but there is no good way to prevent abuse, such as by MichaelAusems. Michaelbusch 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please don't edit anywhere except your talk page, that includes other talk pages. It will get you blocked if you're not careful. 3RR is rough, thats why you should stick clear of it, and make sure that any edits you consider exempt-as-reverting-vandalism really are. Yours weren't. But if all this is neither here nor there, why are you using both our time on it? William M. Connolley 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And please: *Don't* copy things onto my talk page. What is the point in duplicating the same words? As it says at the top of my talk page: if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there William M. Connolley 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I must apologize for being a jackass. Michaelbusch 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response from MarsDrive

I stand by my message to you in the email Michael. Connecting Mars advocate groups to Mars educational articles should make sense to you and is really a no brainer. But in the interests of abiding by Wikipedia rules I posted the Mars for Less article. It is a scholarly article, peer reviewed, and in the right category on that page- Exploration. It was submitted according to the spirit of Wikipedia in building a better knowledge base and in fact Mars exploration, especially human missions and plans should be a part of that page, at least as links. I get nothing out of this, I'm trying to build support for human Mars missions. But if this is the wrong place to do it then so be it. And by the way, 4 Frontiers are a partner with MarsDrive. We are not competitors. What suggestions would you have then for us to build support for human Mars missions as a non profit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrankStratford (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC).