User talk:Michaelbusch/talkarchive4

Please add new messages to the bottom of the page or use the + tab

clearly you need to get out more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrhando26 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the blatant vandal template you left on the above user's talk page with a admin spam warning template (you can use {{spam-warn}}). Blatantvandal is way out of proportion to the user's contribution and not tailored to advise why the article was deleted. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I take it from your reply that your relatively new to newpages patrol. Here's a few user warning tags to know about in addition to the one noted above: for articles tagged with notability concerns under CSD A7 (db-bio, db-band, db-club, db-corp and db-web) warn the creator using {{nn-warn}}; for empty articles under CSD A1 and A3 (db-empty, db-nocontext, db-nocontent) use {{empty-warn}}; for copyvios under CSD G12 (db-copyvio) use {{nothanks}} or {{nothanks-sd}}; for patent nonsense under CSD G1 (db-nonsense), use {{nonsensepage}}; for attacks under CSD G10 (db-attack) use {{attack}}. There's also the series {{uw-create}}, {{uw-create2}}, {{uw-create3}} and {{uw-create4}}, which come in handy where a user keeps creating inappropriate pages. That takes care of most of the user warnings for the high traffic csd tags usually necessary for Special:Newpages. Also see WP:UTM for a large chart of all manner of tags and warnings. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech IPs blocked

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 131.215.220.112 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech IPs are assigned via DHCP, so I, and perhaps other editors, are currently being affected by this autoblock. Please re-set it and note this on the Caltech IP block. Michaelbusch 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Airedale Terrier

I noticed that you made random changes to the Airedale Terrier page, selecting, it seems, at whim, which references you chose to keep, and which you have removed. Rather than Revert - I thought I should write and ask you if you have a logical explanation for your choices? If so, please provide the explanation. You also removed commentaries from several references - as they might require removal to another location on the page, they should not have been entirely erased, as the explaantions were added in response to questions regarding verification, rather than hearsay, of history and the courage and dependability of the breed. Hope you can clarify...

You also removed stamps which clearly pictured the airedale - as there is no means of showing the standards of the breed, and there are limited sources for good visualizations (and, in addition, there is now a great white space that sits unfilled), would it not add to the description and explanation of the look of the breed to keep such pictures on the page? StevenBirnam 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely reverted the addition of a large number of references and images. The article was getting too heavy on both: it shouldn't be dominated by a list of everything about the breed. Michaelbusch 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but isn't that what an encyclopedia is? Data and information about the subject? and references to the subject? In this case, visualizations and references to the breed. It is oft times confusing - one editor posts a comment stating that there are insufficient, substantiated references re an item (whether a descriptive paragraph or an historical anecdote), and then the next minute, another editor reverts the additional references which substantiate the item, stating that there are too many references. Confusing, indeed. StevenBirnam 10:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wiki. Please review Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia:Undue Weight. Michaelbusch 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael: Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately, having read the articles previously, and reviewing them again after your refernce to them, I am even more confused. Neither article seems to validly support your logic for eliminating the pics and references. Re: WP is not a random collection of information - there was nothing randon about the references, nor the images. If you had refered to the item, 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files', I might better understand your reasoning. As it stands, my logic for adding the stamps was to illustrate that the breed is recognized around the world, and conforms to a certain type and look. And re the references, I agree that some of the items were not as pertinent as others, but my question is: How did you determine which publications are more pertinent than the other? It seems that some of the removal was purely random - if you have a means of determining (perhaps you have more than my 15 years of experience with the breed, or have reviewed more dog publications?), please pass the insight on to me, so I do not make the same mistake again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SZAgassi (talk • contribs)

By my reasoning, an unnecessarily large collection of images of Airedale terriers constitutes a random collection of images. You are also correct that 'Wikipedia is not a mirror' applied. My filter to remove excess images was the crudest possible: simple reversion. If you want to remove some images and add others, please discuss this on Talk:Airedale terrier. Michaelbusch 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the user talkpage revert. It's very much appreciated :D AngelOfSadness talk 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de nada. Michaelbusch 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Your recent edits"

Oh. Mkay. Won't do that again. Bfahome 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNOI

The United Nation of Islam guy (User1x) is back again. FYI. I suggest higher protection for the page, to prevent it from consistently becoming some sort of recruitment advertising tool for these guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonuc (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is only one editor vandalizing the page right now, I don't think higher protection is justified. I've given Useruser1x a final warning for vandalism. My concern is not that the article will become an advertisement, because that we can remove, but that it will become a battleground (witness the editing history). That's why it is under semi-protect. Michaelbusch 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN APPEAL TO REASON BEFORE ARBITRATION - UNOI

I have placed an appeal to reason before arbitration category on my discussion page with the evidence to support unfactual editing by you and others. I would like your opinion on the facts before we take this further.

Initiated by Useruser1x at 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Masonuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I doubt ArbCom would hear this case. Michaelbusch 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to give your opinion on the facts supporting your non-factual submissions/editing concerning the wikipedia article "united nation of islam" on its discussion page; not your opinion concerning the probability of ArbCom's refusal to hear the case. Thank you Useruser1x 17:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no 'non-factual submissions' and you are becoming insulting. Michaelbusch 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the other user (before Useruser1x) that continually reverted the UNOI page. I have no idea whether they are the same person, I presume not. But they clearly are both followers of UNOI (the blessed knower admits it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/theblessedknower Masonuc 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the page is now fully protected and Useruser1x got his/her version in a few minutes before the protect (replacing your version, Michaelbusch). Controversy section completely deleted . Not as much of an advertisement as before, but not neutral, and still a bit advertising. -- 195.189.142.233 02:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can edit protected pages. If there is a consensus for reversion, they may use this to restore the old version. Michaelbusch 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOMOS UNOS

SOMOS UNOS, a political campaign, and THE FAIRNESS ACT PAC, a political action committee, were founded in 2006 by lobbyist and political fundraiser, ANTHONY E. RAMOS, to address the domestic immigration problem through the U.S. Congress. The stated purpose of the campaign is to introduce and pass legislation that will provide for basic visa rights for undocumented aliens now living in the United States. A core premise is that the American people will continue to reject any law that provides for citizenship or 'amnesty' for undocumented aliens. Yet the American people would support a law that documents illegal aliens, allowing them to live in the United States legally. MR. RAMOS was the principal organizer of the campaign and serves as the campaign lobbyist and principal fundraiser.

www.somosunos.com.

Your stated reason was because you say Wikipedia does not promote political agendas.

In light of some of the searches which we conducted prior to attempting our entry. For example, the following political entities and/or campaigns, and the number of articles for each are on Wikipedia:

l. Republican Party USA: 1880 articles;

2. Democratic Party USA: 2952 articles;

3. 'Civil Rights' USA: 4441 articles;

4. Hamas - full page bio. write-up;

5. Hezbollah - full page bio. write-up;

6. Al Qaeda - full page bio. write-up.

We dispute this, and wish to proceed with publication of our article. If someone wishes to discuss this with us, or believes that some of the language may not fit exactly with wikipedia, we are open to suggestion, since none of us every tried this before.

At the same time, however, this is one of the top five social issues facing Americans and we believe that documenting this historic event, just like the documentation of other historic events, is within Wikipedia's guidelines. We hope for an expedited and favorable response.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOMOS1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Michaelbusch 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.161.194 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNOI article

Useruser1x is continuing to revert the article, Monday morning Oct 29. Masonuc 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jencass and Jen Cass

Hello. I wanted to explain why I deleted the CSD tag at Jen Cass. Jencass did remove it, which was inappropriate, but it's a mistake many new editors make.

I restored it soon thereafter. However, on Talk:Jen Cass, Jencass wrote that she is Jen Cass's publicist and that she wrote the material. In other words, there is no WP:COPYVIO, so I deleted the CSD tag that I had restored, along with Jencass's "hangon" tag.

I added a WP:COI banner to the Talk page and left a message at User talk:Jencass#Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and I put several banners at the top of Jen Cass describing the cleanup I think it needs. I don't think the article is a candidate for speedy delivery, although it may be WP:PRODded.

In the spirit of WP:BITE, would you mind if I asked you to remove your comment at User talk:Jencass? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still copyvio, unless you've gotten confirmation that User:Jencass is who she says she is. Just a post isn't sufficient. Also note that this article has been recreated after removal at least once. But I will reconsider the wording. Michaelbusch 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand that we can't just take somebody's word as truth about permission, but I thought that leaving her name and e-mail address made her more credible. By the way, I'm curious, how can you tell that an article has been recreated? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Admins have access to deletion histories for pages, but in this case we also have the warning left on the User talk:Jencass by User:Moonriddengirl, who deleted the article "Jen Cass" on grounds of blatant copyright infringement. Michaelbusch 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millais School

I am surprised that you have suggested a speedy deletion of the above. There is a general acceptance that junior schools do not generally warrant a page but there certainly is not that acceptance with senior schools. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools to get more background. Paste 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This rule does not make sense to me. Michaelbusch 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what rule are you refering to? Paste 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That all senior (or 'secondary' in the US, I guess) schools rate Wikipedia pages. It seems excessive. Michaelbusch 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouvier

Hey Michael, I see your point re: vanity posting. I'm new to this, hence prior posting with name etc. Yet, while I understand the "vanity" prohibition and gladly remove the byline with dog's name etc., I find the Bouvier wiki lacking in proper images. The photo of Winston is a prime example of a Bouvier, with his typically shaggy fur and hidden eyes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winston_%28Bouvier%29.jpg)

The prior image immediately above, however -- byline: "purported shaved Bouvier" is wholly inappropriate and should indeed be deleted -- what is the point in having a "purported"/"alleged" photograph, of which the poster even doubts the authenticity (his/her orig. text: "This is purported to be a "shaved Bouvier des Flandres" though the shape and diminutive size suggest otherwise unless it is an adolescent Bouvier.") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bouvier_shaved.JPG)

I will await your response. Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasWashington (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the shaved Bouvier picture, but I don't think that is reason to upload your own photos. I'd suggest trying to find public-domain or fair-use images of breed standards. Michaelbusch 03:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Dear Michaelbusch, I recieved a message about the user profile. What I do not understand is why you tell me not to take posession of the user page when you constantly talk about yourself on your user page. It seems that you are being a bit hipocritical.

                                                      Sincerely,
                                                             Helraiser9191  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helraiser9191 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a key distinction between Wikipedia:Userspace and Wikipedia:Articles. You stated on your userpage 'my articles'. If by this you simply meant your userpage, that is acceptable (although the wording is non-standard), and I apologize. If you meant articles that you have written or contributed to, please understand that they are not 'your' articles. They are simply articles you have worked on, and you should expect other editors to edit them without mercy. Michaelbusch 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfa

Hey. Though I do not believe you are currently ready for adminship, I believe that you have potential to become an admin. I suggest that you pull out of the Rfa, learn from your mistakes, and try again in 5 or 6 months. Also having an admin coach may be helpful. Cheers!--SJP 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

BTW, if you comment back to me leave it on my talk page please. Have a nice day:)--SJP 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Also, next time you probably should let someone else nominate you, and not nominate yourself. In the next few months I will be happy to help you, and if you improve enough I will nominate you if you would like. Have a nice day:)--SJP 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiments noted above. Please try again later, in a few months. Bearian 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

space weather

The space radiation at the surface of Mars is non negligible; there's only 20 grams/centimeter^2 of atmosphere; you really want 10x that.WolfKeeper 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Space radiation' is very much different from space weather. The cosmic ray flux on Mars is higher, fair enough, but 20 g/cm^2 cuts down a flare to the point of sensitive electronics not noticing. Michaelbusch 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Wow, you're quick! Every time I'm about to place a "speedy deletion tag" on something, it says edit conflict ^_^ Good work - •ZaneWolf• 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. About half the time I try to speedy, someone else has gotten there first. At least nothing is getting through. Michaelbusch 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- too many people are creating articles with no significance and not enough legitimate ones. :) Nice to meet a dedicated wikipedian. - •ZaneWolf• 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your intension is clear

Why are you trying to promote Prabir Ghosh? You are abusing wikipedia, Mr. Michaelbusch. You never raised questions about the false claim of Ghosh. I gave sufficient document as well as arguments to demask Ghosh. However, you are not interested with those things but interested to delete all proofs that expose Ghosh. What do you want to show the world? Ghosh is very genuine? What is your intension? --Sukanta Das 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to promote Ghosh - if you peruse the edit history of the article, you will see that I have removed a lot of material that was overly laudatory. I also do not condone all of his tactics. But posting 50 kilobytes of text that consists in large part of personal attacks and in other ways seems designed to be inflammatory is unacceptable. If you can reduce the volume of your posts by at least a factor of ten, discuss the matter with civility, and stop insulting other editors & their families (do remember that Ghosh's son is an editor - that is a COI, but an understandable one), then your concerns will be clearer and can be addressed. Michaelbusch 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Michelbusch but have to tell, you don’t understand the meaning of personal attacks very well. I told you before, and am again repeating, informing facts about a person with documents is not a personal attack. If you are still not convinced, that is, if you still think telling truth about a fake person is a personal attack, we then need to sit together for a long discuss about the matter. Secondly, it’s my wonder, being a computer user in present days you are so worried with 50 KB data which actually states many facts! If are really worried about the space, delete the whole page of this fake person. And Michel, you are very concerned about Pinaki! Are you concerned about this wikipedia and its goodwill? Pinaki played with the goodwill of this wikipedia. I mentioned all these things in the discussion page (which you have deleted) and probably told you personally. Well, I am telling the fact again:

Pinaki Ghosh played a key role to promote his father in wikipedia. Pinaki added Ghosh’s name at the beginning of a list of ‘notable rationalists’ maintained in Rationalist movement page, based on which Kolkata TV broadcasted news on June 11, 2007 that Wikipedia had ranked Prabir Ghosh as World's number one rationalist. Prabir as well as Pinaki were involved to abuse the media. They still maintain a site claiming the same. To check, visit the following link [1]. Michel, have you raised a single question about this thing? Before reply me, you please try to understand the motive of “editor” Pinaki.

I never insult anyone. Again I am sorry to say, you don’t understand the meaning of insulting.--Sukanta Das 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with you regarding my understanding of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and of what insults are. Michaelbusch 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA did not pass

I have closed your RFA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future.Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that if you address the concerns brought up in your RFA that within 3 months you will succeed and I would be happy to show my support. Cheers! Tiptoety 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental evidence of anti-gravity?

Regarding your assertion that anti-gravity is an impossibility, I'm curious whether you've seen this new paper by Mills. In it, he describes what he claims is experimental verification of an anti-gravity fifth force using a rather straight-forward laboratory setup involving an electron gun, a beam of neutral atoms (Neon, Helium, etc.) and grounded detection plates. I'm somewhat skeptical, but, assuming this isn't outright fraud, I'm at a loss to explain the claimed results. Just curious what your take on it might be. GenMan2000 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks, with insufficient experimental controls producing a false signal, observer bias, and unclear expectations. I haven't done a full study of the setup to consider the particulars, but that much is clear from a quick examination - enough that if I were the editor of a journal I'd drop it into the immediate rejection bin. Michaelbusch 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite likely. However, what I find odd is that current ratios deviate with electron energy and peak at levels associated with quantum states he predicts. This seems like a straight forward experiment to replicate so I suspect we'll find out soon enough. FWIW, there have been academics - Marchese, Naudt, Phillips, etc. who have supported Mills' stuff in the past. You seem to have a background in gravity - I suggest it might be worth your time to read the whole thing. GenMan2000 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew how many of these things pile in my inbox and occasionally end up on the departmental joke board, you would understand my use of immediate filters. Michaelbusch 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that this experiment was conducted double-blind. Lu did not know the theory behind it nor what to expect in the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.9.75 (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not that interested in this particular nonsense. Michaelbusch 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tenderhooks.jpg

Hello, and thanks for your work tagging images and articles for speedy deletion. However, I noticed that you tagged Image:Tenderhooks.jpg (a picture of a band) for speedy deletion because it was a non-notable band. Images are not judged based on their subject matter, but rather on their meeting certain requirements; review the speedy deletion policy for images and media to avoid this in the future. Thanks again!--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the issues I had in my RfA. I'm against using Wikipedia as a file-storage system. Michaelbusch 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while are are certainly entitled to your opinion, we as admins have to follow the rules. If you want to change policy, as I'm sure you are well aware, you have to take that up elsewhere.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I have learned. Michaelbusch 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a perfectly good point - and pace the above message, rules are made to be broken - but the best way to deal with this in the long term would be to raise the question at the CSD talk page, or the Village Pump proposals page. Very best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felgett's advantage

You recently tagged the above article as needing a clean up and attention from an expert. I am the author of the article and although not an expert in the field, I am concerned with spectroscopy on a daily basis. I would like to know in exactly what way I can improve the article so as to make steps to removing the tags. Thanks. Bobby1011 05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are general tags indicating that the article needs to be re-formatted in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and that an expert should review it so that it is understandable to the general audience (see WP:OBVIOUS). Michaelbusch 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mistake

It meant to redirect to Singapore Airlines Flight 006 - Lee died on that crash. Lee is not notable as an individual, so I redirect and do not mention the name in the actual article. Even though the crash happened 7 years ago, I do this to prevent article creation and to underscore that Lee is only collectively notable as a victim of a disaster. WhisperToMe 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is what happened to the Virginia Tech massacre victims. Each victim is not individually notable, so the names are redirected. WhisperToMe 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It is somewhat confusing at first glance, though. Michaelbusch 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :)

I asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation about three people who are relatives of notable people (who do not have Wikipedia articles yet) who happened to die in notable plane crashes. Where should their names redirect to? Should Elma Thwaites redirect to her son's name or to the plane crash? Should Katie Lychner and Pam Lychner redirect to her mother's name or to the plane crash article? WhisperToMe 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link them to the crash pages, as long as they aren't mentioned in other articles. Michaelbusch 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on Ome Henk

I don't know who you think you are, but you are in no whatsoever position to simply delete a request for arbitration. If you'd have read it completely you might also have noted, that I did try several other ways of resolving this matter. 217.233.211.230 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply an editor. But don't make ArbCom angry. And I observe that you have not followed the dispute resolution process, that the page you claim the article is a copy of is not written in English, and that when I run a computer translation there is little correspondence between the two. Note that pretending to be another editor is considered valid reason for a block from editing. Michaelbusch 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about just letting ArbCom decide this matter??? 217.233.211.230 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because ArbCom is massively over-worked and should not have to deal with bollocks. Michaelbusch 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me the diff where the user was blocked for legal threats on another IP? Durova^Charge! 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two IPs:

217.233.230.136, blocked for 'legal threats and general trolling' [2]

and 217.233.221.43, blocked for vandalism [3] Michaelbusch 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship comment

I just forgot that you had an adminship, so I deleted my own post. NHRHS2010 talk 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have adminship, I have an unsuccessful RfA. But we'll see what happens in a few months. Michaelbusch 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant RfA. NHRHS2010 talk 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randell Mills

Michael, regarding your request to "clean this up, please", kindly be specific as to what you think needs to be fixed (with Wikipedia links if applicable). Thanks. Dave Fafarman 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Randell Mills. Michaelbusch 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

whydouhate Robin Burger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I'm just not convinced that every member of the American Screenwriters Guild merits their own article. Michaelbusch 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

217.233.216.208

No problem. The IP added another fake block template to User:AllynJ's talk page, so I blocked it for 72 hours. Hope that's alright. GlassCobra 21:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Shepherd

I noticed that you tagged Ashton Shepherd for notability. She does meet notability criteria; more specifically WP:MUSIC -- at least criterion #2 for musicians and ensembles, which states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well enough, but she has charted exactly once, at the extreme bottom. I'll have to review WP:MUSIC. Michaelbusch 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that would be 1/3 of the way up, since the country chart is 60 positions. Personally, I think "charted hit" is intentionally ambiguous in the case of WP:MUSIC, so your placement of the {{notability}} tag was most certainly in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordermonger

Hi. If the original author blanks a page like that (one that is going to be speedy deleted) and there are no other significant contributions, you don't need to revert it. Just add the speedy tag for WP:CSD#G7 which I did, but you reverted it. Rjd0060 07:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic speedies

please use MfD or Prod--its more trouble trying to bypass the right way. I left a few that are technically within the speedy criteria to try to speed things up. Or ask him on his user page to request deletion. --might possibly work.DGG (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Michaelbusch 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent edits on Transhumanism

I've added commentary to why I made the edit in the talk page; I have not made any edits since yesterday. I'll let the page's contributors sort it out, but it looks to me like a certain individual was ruining the article with her self-puffery. I don't really care that much, but it really disrupts the way the whole page reads. 75.71.80.122 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Db-repost

Hi, I see you have tagged Aldo Franco Arabic and Praht Thai School, with {{db-repost}}, but these don't seem to have been deleted after AFD consensus (WP:CSD#G4 does not include speedy deletes). The former, which seemed to not have the problems of its original deletion, I removed the speedy tag but put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo Franco Arabic. The latter seems to have been discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum, so it probably qualifies (I'd have to check if the content is substantially the same). Having looked at the edits, I do think you're right that there's sock puppetry going on. Rigadoun (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praht Thai School was, if you run back to the earliest incarnation. Aldo Franco Arabic wasn't, but it was speedied previously, so db-reposting seemed relevant - although I now see the logic on the CSD page. -- Michaelbusch (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Judae1

You removed it all, not just a good portion. I'm not certain your total edit is justified and I do need to build a bio page for myself. There seem to be thousands of sites where people talk about what they do. Edit my Wiki work, fine; why my own page that helps people know who I am and what my interests are?

The Wiki guideline states: "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" I don't think my one graph was more than a couple of pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Judae1 (talk • contribs)

Length wasn't the issue: I removed that which seemed to be advertisement or personal aggrandizement. Some of the material is acceptable if re-written, and should indeed be included because your COI should be evident. While you are allowed some latitude in your userpage, there are still limits (as described in Wikipedia:Userpage. Also, please stand down on your edit-warring for the moment: you have a blatant conflict-of-interest, which you admit to, but which is obviously causing problems. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Blatant COI does not make the article, the references or any part of it necessarily invalid. What I find disturbing here is that too often people here on Wikipedia simply look to jump on a issue rather than be objective about it. As for the edit war, for all the talk of COI, no one mentions the fact that a stranger to Wiki signs up and immediately begins asking to delete just two articles. Why is there very little common sense employed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is used here, but only by means of WP:CONSENSUS. All editors start equal. Because you have a COI, you should step back from the dispute, as should your current nemesis. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XMeeting

Michael,

How would I go about making it less advertise like? I am not affiliated with the project but noticed that all references to it had no links on Wikipedia, unlike other software, so I wanted to make it easier for the next users. I've copied the template from SIP Communicator so if this is not a good template, I'd appreciate a pointer to make it adhere to the Wikipedia standards. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardkovarski (talk • contribs)

Please review WP:ADVERT and WP:NPOV for advice on article style. One minor point that may not be in there: don't make half the text bold. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I've fixed up the bold -- markup mistake on my behalf -- and I've also removed some of the wording, e.g. powerful, which may be more opinion than fact. I'll go review now the links you've provided.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardkovarski (talk • contribs)

Michael, if you get a chance, can you take a look at XMeeting and let me know your thoughts on whether it would require any other changes. Greatly appreciated! EdwardKovarski (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, what happened to the XMeeting page? I can't seem to find a trace of it even though I've asked for it to be disputed as I've made significant changes to the page. Is there a way to pull up the history or see the history of what transpired? EdwardKovarski (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What the Bleep Do We Know!?

As a general rule, the Committee leaves enforcement of remedies up to other administrators; the proper place to bring up such matters would be WP:AN/AE. Kirill 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thank you. Martin seems to be exercising some restraint at the moment, so I don't think a formal report is in order yet. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Carl Friedrich Gauss

Carl Friedrich Gauss has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The Drumattic Twins

Oh, thank you for taking the time for telling me. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 05:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Zaitsev

Michael, the information about forum 'award' you added[4] violates our Biographies of Living People policy. We must not add anything based on unreliable sources such as forums, and negative information should be added only if it's notable part of the subject's biography and it is not given an undue weight. I've removed that information, please don't readd. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the website awarding the award would be reliable. But I see the rationale on notability grounds, although there are many other biographies that contain less notable information (e.g. Dave Tholen). Michaelbusch (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaitsev and Ostro discussed your repeated edits via email, initiated by MaxSem's interveniance; Ostro completely agreed to Zaitsev's original statement, thus, the original statements in the Zaitsev's Wiki article are true; Zaitsev accepted your excuse, I read your excuse but cannot accept your scientific behaviour within Wiki as scientist. Yasminwalter (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UT)

I am confused. Zaitsev and Ostro informed me of my error, and I replaced the text with a more accurate version (which Zaitsev has also edited since). This mistake was most definitely my fault, and is a good illustration of the usefulness of having everyone be able to edit Wikipedia.

If in the above you refer to the repeated usage of Zaitsev's first name: that is a typographical matter independent of the truth or verifiability of the relevant sentences. 'Alexdandr Zaitsev' and 'Zaitsev' mean exactly the same thing in the article. It is simply a convention in spoken and written English to not repeat more of the name than is necessary - that is all.

If you refer to my general patterns of editing: I am currently considering adminship on Wikipedia. I should therefore be advised on ways to improve my editing. If you do not like my general approach to editing, please explain why. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page

The Ship for Southeast Youth Program (SSEAYP) was deleted. Is there any way that this can be restored? This is a program for the youths or once young people in SouthEast Asia - who joined and had good benefits from. It fostered friendship and goodwill to participants and ex participants on the program. Please help.

Is there any administrator or administrators who could help restore SSEAYP page (The Ship of SouthEast Asian Youth Program) for the sake of the youth of South East Asia??

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jbsantos" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsantos (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 November 2007

The page cannot be resorted in anything like the form it was in when it was removed, as at that point it constituted advertisement. Please see WP:ADVERT and Wikipedia:Notable. And don't mess with userpages. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

I would suggest that you read the article on cold fusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I note that some of your edits there are not sufficiently cited. In particular, do you have primary sources claiming to replicate the excess heat? This again is independent of Mills' particular form of nonsense. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which edit is not properly cited, and I'll correct it. Primary sources reporting the replication of excess heat are already cited in the article, in the sentence about peer-reviewed journals. Here they are again:

Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998)
Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642.
Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) [2]
M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 [3]
B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99

Pcarbonn (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be cited in-line with the sentence. Note that I, and most of the scientific community, has grave doubts about these papers' validity. That, of course, is another discussion. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are cited inline after the sentence "There are now nearly 200 published reports of anomalous power[2] - mostly in non-mainstream publications, with a few in peer-reviewed journals." I'm not sure what you mean. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TM POV resolution

Can I ask you for some advice as we try to move toward a resolution of the POV issue over at Transcendental Meditation? Recommendations for building consensus, that nebulous beast, are welcome. I'm new, but eager to learn.Naturezak (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TM has been a bone of contention since before I started editing, I'm afraid. At the moment, here is my evaluation of the situation: TimidGuy, littleoliveoil, and perhaps Spariag are admitted TMers, with conflicts-of-interest. They have been the main editors to the TM article and Maharishi's biography, and it is very hard to persuade them to not revert any large additions to the page. In light of their COIs, I have requested that they cease editing the article and permit a free hand for a complete overhaul. They dis-liked my observation that they cannot be completely neutral, and seem to mis-understand my request for a complete overhaul for a request for them to make small alterations. You have seen what they do if bold changes are made.

At the moment, there are four editors I am aware of who have strongly protested the editing of the TM article - you, me, User:Dseer and User:Philosophus. That may be enough for a consensus. Note though that the TMers are zealous and persistent, and also like to cite WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS to excess - even when they do not apply. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I added documentation to show that TimidGuy has already been determined by the COI Noticeboard to have been in violation of COI and should not be editing anyway, with similar implications for the other TMers. I did not want to pursue this by myself only to get beat up by all the TMers, but there are enough non-TM editors here now to convince Arbcom to take the case and most certainly block TimidGuy and the other TMers from editing based on their continued pattern and refusal to comply with COI, and ample evidence no other conflict resolution means exist. They will argue endlessly, you need a solution with teeth. --Dseer (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to invoke ArbCom - but I need to consider other approaches. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timidguy wrote, over at TM talk: "If you feel I'm in violation of COI policy, please do take this to Arbcom." He and olive continue to ignore requests that they recuse themselves for COI, and continue to immerse themselves in discussion of theory and research that I -- and perhaps others? -- is far outside the scope of the article. To be frank, it is my opinion that their desire to include such material comes from an uncritical perspective that seeks to enhance the apparent legitimacy of the TM method. Naturezak (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully convinced that they are intentionally being disruptive - although at this point it is hard to think otherwise. ArbCom is excessive now, but I'll drop a line to the Admins. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your lack of conviction. But whether they are deliberately or unintetionally doing so, they are disabling others' ability to produce a neutral and informative article. Though olive's new efforts may be productive. I do balk at the idea that, given the protection, "consensus" in this case means everything gets flight-tested on the talk page, and THEN posted... unless the TM-affiliated editors disapprove and revert. Hopefully there will be no more of that.Naturezak (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I have for these efforts is a warning from my old adversary and what I see as cult friendly Jossi for lack of civility (LOL), and a refusal to address the more primary NPOV issue or defer to a more neutral Admin, or address the NPOV issue on a subject where Jossi has strong opinions. My opinion remains that history will repeat itself with the TMers who always promise reform but already have been told shouldn't even be editing the article as they do anyway. If enough editors can get a neutral Admin and then go to arbitration if they continue to obstruct, I will support that, otherwise I don't need the constant harassment. Otherwise, after all this time, I believe anything less than a thorough re-editing the TMers will never agree to simply makes the article appear less transparently biased. Failing that, the problem with such partial improvement is that as the COI Noticeboard said as much, the bias and the absurdity of claims like yogic flying and the disproven Maharishi effect will deter sensible readers from buying the propaganda.--Dseer (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lodged a notice at WP:ANI. If there is no action as a result, and the TMers persist in stone-walling changes, then ArbCom may have to be considered. But please do try to keep a cool head - if, as you say, Jossi has a conflict-of-interest, then that will be dealt with in any remedy. Wikipedia requires a particularly tough epidermis. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, those comments were made before I decided to get engaged, seeing the same old stuff and that TimidGuy was going to compatriots like Martinphi to get aid outside of TM. Last time, the other editors bailed in my first time at COI just as I was getting agreement there was COI. I don't want to lead this time, I just want to be there to help document the issue, and like Sathya Sai Baba, the end will probably be binding arbitration, after which my role will have ended. I did inform Jossi that Wikipedia itself says that NPOV comes before civility, and if you look at his edits on articles involving issues cults, you can see why he should recuse himself. I have no problem toning it down and have no long term interest in this cult but serious violations need to be dealt with. --Dseer (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to get to that page, but looking at differences, may be you can pass on the following comment regarding my actions: This has been before COI twice already in the last year and a subject of repeated edit warring with no resolution for article ownership or compliance with determination that TMers have COI. It is not cool heads that are required, it is someone to take control and if need be enforce policies evenly. Jossi selectively harping on civility without also acknowledging the context, and that the Civility policy itself says that NPOV comes first, then civility, and who has their own strong opinions on cults and those criticising them, should defer to Admins who have no interest either way in cults but can recognize fringe claims, POV, COI and information suppression for what it is.--Dseer (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested assistance here [[5]] regarding Jossi's failure to enforce NPOV then Civility as required by the Civility Policy itself, and his failure to recuse himself when he has strong opinions on conflicts between cults and critics. This isn't your fight, but Jossi isn't that helpful in these types of articles given his personal views on credibility respectively, and neutrality is what we need. --Dseer (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IColossuslogo.JPG and Image:Icolossussmall.JPG

Hi. I've deleted the images, but as CSD I5, not A7. Please tag images and media with an I-series reason in future. IceKarma ॐ 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced the I-series is complete, but well enough. Michaelbusch (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tunguska event was an act of...the prince of Germany?

I'm sure you'd notice this soon enough anyway, but I found it so utterly hilarious I thought you should know about it as soon as possible. [6]. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that same note, you're from the North Pole. (because I know you love these so much) Someguy1221 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Germanic Neopaganism discussion, if you don't believe it to be the Troth. Thor and Religion. Gnostics 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm from Polaris and every time I wink, I'm giving you a bare buns. Gnostics (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TStolper1W looks more like a content dispute

I think you both need to stop reverting. Does not look like vandalism to me. Looks like a content dispute. Suggest you stop and seek a third party, report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, seek help at WP:AN/I. Dloh cierekim 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well enough, but this seems far more like vandalism to me. Michaelbusch 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to sat. I left him with a 3rr notice. If he violates the 3 revert rule, you can report him there. Dloh cierekim 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just did. Report being filed as I write this. Michaelbusch 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reskin Theory sent to afd

Every time I reached for the delete button, I stopped. I sent it to AfD. There are some Google Scholar hits, news hits, and web hits. Might be "significant media coverage" out there somewhere. The main sources for the article are her works, so it looks like either WP:OR or promotion as you say. Of course, rewriting could fix that if she really is notable. Please comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reskin Theory. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a reliable, NPOV wikipedia

Michaelbusch, for the sake of making wikipedia a WP:reliable, WP:NPOV source of information, please stop deleting relevant, well-sourced statements, like you did here:

cold fusion theory vs experiment, and here (see talk)
cold fusion patent (see talk)
cold fusion bibliography (see talk here and here)

Also, please stop misquoting reliable sources:

cold fusion and hydrino (see talk
hydrino and Quantum Mechanics and here (see talk

The best way to defend your opinion that cold fusion is "bollocks", as you say, is to provide reliable source to that effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been served. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are cited in a wikiquette alert. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements, however, and note that he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion. I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised - I've talked to Pcarbonn about this at great length and he refuses to accept policy. In my judgment, he is using claims of 'reliable' and 'NPOV' to push his own favorite forms of nonsense onto the articles. Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds. I recuse myself from editing until this is decided. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

By rights you should really be blocked for edit warring at cold fusion and hydrino theory, but as you've undertaken to stop I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Remember that only obvious, simple vandalism (e.g. replacing the text with rubbish, adding swearwords, or tests) are exempt from 3RR, and adding and removing disputed statements generally is not. Be particularly careful as other admins may not be as forgiving :) Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am over-interpreting WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, but doesn't removing the statement that hydrino theory is generally considered pseudoscience - which is most definitely true, and required to make Wikipedia consistent with the scientific consensus constitute vandalism and POV-pushing? This was what I was reverting in most of the edits cited in the 3RR report, hence my mis-counting regarding the number of edits. If I may be so bold, I suggest you also warn User:Pcarbonn - for the reasons I described. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being civil in this manner. I'm not wholly for sure on the schematics of the two articles, however, I will review the articles tonight on the basis of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and comment on that. I'm sure that we can all come to a consensus on this that everyone can agree upon. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably does constitute those things, but neither of those are exempt from 3RR - they are not "simple and obvious vandalism", which is defined as something that any admin who had never visited the page or heard of the concept before would be able to identify as vandalism.

I will warn Pcarbonn and TStolper1W but do not see evidence justifying a further block of the latter. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for working diligently to get Wikipedia to properly report on scientific consensus. We sure could use more editors like yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, the above three sections remind me of the following quote from Babylon 5. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Half of them want to give you a medal and half of them want you shot.'

I think we appreciate your edits and diligence. It's the edit warring that is a concern. I would suggest asking Apologist for help in the sticky parts you've encountered. He knows a lot about what you have encountered and can help you to stay within policy and still get things done. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I seem to have a stricter definition of what constitutes vandalism and inappropriate content than most editors. Every so often, I encounter editors who are very insistent on including content that others would deem marginal and I deem unacceptable. This can lead to problems. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Like I say, Apologist can help you with that. He's been dealing with things like that for a while. Dloh cierekim 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrino theory is gone

Hi Michael,

There is absolutely no reason that hydrino theory should exist independent of the article on Randell Mills. I have merged the hydrino article into his biography therefore. Hope you approve.

Best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that, but I won't dispute the point - Mills is only notable for claiming to have gotten 50 million dollars out of his pseudoscience. Interestingly, I haven't been able to get confirmation of this from the company - I emailed them asking to see their public-record financial report and they did not respond. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing is that the theory and he together are only worth a single article; its always hard to decide which, but my bias is the name, which is more likely to be known and looked for. Incidentally, Mike, you'll need to find a better source for the plagiarism accusation. Not that i disbelieve it necessarily, but it still needs a real source. DGG (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Bob Park (quoted in the controversy section) is not sufficient? Note that matters of belief don't enter here - despite Stolper's original research, which I distrust. All we can do is to note that the accusation was made, which we have done. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Unbelievable

You're going to "warn" me for making "personal attacks" by defending myself from a delusional crusade on the Wikiquette page? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am warning you. 'Defending yourself' does not including making more edits of the sort that got you referred to the alert page in the first place. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm not going to get a useful answer if I ask you whether your suspiciously quick and disproportionate interest in this matter has anything to do with a personal, behind-the-scenes relationship with any of the other people involved? I also think that since you are setting yourself up as a guardian of scientific accuracy on Wikipedia, you would do well to look at what a mess the homeopathy article has become, and how it has essentially been taken over by quacks and mental cases who think repeating well-proven facts about how homeopathy is a pseudoscientific fraud is "NPOV." Then you might understand where some of my comments came from, instead of taking LonelyBeacon's misinformed, victim-complex words at face value. (He still thinks I insulted him for being gay, which did not happen, and I invite you to judge for yourself who is in touch with reality by examining the actual entries surrounding that event). Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned of this matter because I was posting something else entirely to the Wikiquette alert page, and your case happened to be next to it. I appreciate your views with respect to homeopathy, and to a fairly great extent agree with them. Personal attacks do not aid the cause, however - and I am warning you only based on what I have seen in your recent edits. It has to end sometime. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Thank you again for taking a look at my complaint at the BLP noticeboard. Please give this priority, it is a volatile situation. I respect Wikipidia and its stated policies. I'm being assailed by two or more editors/administrators who think it is all just 'a game' which they feel they can 'win' by manipulating procedures designed to protect, not to abuse. Please 'put yourself in my shoes' for a minute. How would you like it if you came to public attention many years ago, and were libeled and slandered, and then years later, with the advent of the internet, you found yourself libeled and slandered on an extremely popular website? Jsmith 51389 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see the case for libel myself, but I have not studied the material completely. What I have determined is that you are probably not being deliberately stalked. You should review WP:LIBEL and follow the instructions there. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a request for comment/opinion

If you are able and willing, will you please examine the histories of Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald? There have been arguments going on and we (the bloodied but unbowed combatants) are attempting to get outside opinions/comments on the various controversies.

On an entirely unrelated matter, I see that on your user page you make a passing mention of cold fusion. I seem to recall reading somewhere that while it is true that cold fusion does release a certain amount of energy, the amount of energy released is vanishingly small (i.e., it comes nowhere near the engineering break-even point much less the commercial break-even point). Is my understanding correct, or am I misremembering/misunderstanding what I read?

--Nbahn (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the pages if I have time later tonight. Re. cold fusion: I'm afraid that enthusiasts have been running over the article here, but the basic summation is that cold fusion is impossible, if by cold fusion you mean fusion in the absence of high-energy particles (which is what the enthusiasts would like to be true). With a small source of high-energy deuterons and a little tritium, you can make a fusion source a few cm long that does release a very little energy - but it all comes out in neutrons. These designs, derived from atomic bomb triggers, are 'cold fusion' in the sense that the bulk of the device is not at high temperature, but there are a lot of high-energy particles flying around. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually rather surprised you sought my opinion on this: I do not have much experience editing political articles on Wikipedia, particularly those with a history of controversy. Now, looking over the articles, I don't see anything terribly bad, and I don't see anything too contentious on the talk pages. I may have distorted standards, given some of the editing disputes I've been involved in. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm trying to bend the ear of anyone who seems sane enough and has posted to the Biography of Living Persons Notice board. You posted to the page and I liked what I saw on your user page; ergo, I contacted you. The key phrase is: "If you are able and willing." For me, at least, going through the diffs is no fun at all; but you have to go through them line by line in order to see what the articles were and how they "evolved" into their current permutations and the rationales behind it all. Quite frankly, I'm starting to see exclusively in dark pink colors and I'm also perspiring underneath my collar (if you know what I mean).<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do try to keep a cool head. I'm afraid that is the only advice I can give. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived talk 2007 October 19