User talk:Sdedeo/archive3

I need an advocate and help with mediation

(spam removed) Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have spammed so many people with this request that it is rather useless for me to reply substantively. If you wish a mediation, go to the mediation cabal page and fill out the form. Sdedeo (tips) 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that?

Why would I be reported -- I am just trying to keep the page on an npov. ---—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Settersr (talk • contribs) .

You violated "3RR" -- i.e., you reverted an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with people you disagree with if they persist is to hash it out on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment please?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology.

Thanks, --ScienceApologist 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR

I noticed your comment on another user's talk page, who in turn spoke to me. Please do not encourage POV-driven participation, and do not make unfounded allegations of POV-bias. Please take note of WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Information in an article which can potentially be called slander if unfounded needs to be supported with highly credible sources. Too much of the information you've re-added are unsourced, others are supported by sources that don't speak to the content you're adding. Do not use content from sources and then draw your own interpretations of what they mean. Also, bear in mind that sources that come from editorials or opinion pieces need to be represented in the article as opinions, not relayed as fact. This is particularly the case when the source has a clearly partisan allegience. His Excellency... 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Tyruler/Adam f 90 are removing important, relevant and sourced material from the article. Your behavior verges on vandalism. Sdedeo (tips) 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith on your part and presume you're not misleading. The article is littered with statements which are not supported by the sources that follow them. The individuals listed in the indictments section aren't shown, by the source, to be affiliated with CAIR. Do a word search, CAIR doesn't even appear on these sources. Allegations and indictments not related to CAIR do not belong in the CAIR article, it's that simple. Other allegations you added on to the article are easily refuted by more credible sources. The government clearly hasn't 'cut ties' with CAIR if documents this year commend them for assisting in security matters domestically and abroad. The fact that your material takes up space in the article and makes blunt and serious accusations doesn't make them 'important'. That content can be considered libel if not appropriately cited and examined for accuracy. His Excellency... 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you correcting the "cut ties" sentence, and did not revert it. But the individuals convicted of terrorism charges -- the list you keep removing -- are indeed linked to CAIR in the fashions described. Instead of removing things that offend your personal sensibilities, you should strive to source. You, and Tyruler / Adam f 90, are hardly "good faith" participants in the editing of this article, given the sweeping deletions you continue to press for. Sdedeo (tips) 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy f 90

Andy f 90 has a post in 2004 in a web forum. So if the person is a sockpuppet, it isn't the first use thereof. Andjam 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) h[reply]

My mediation

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-17 Editorial Abuse User ccwaters. What's the status of this? The complaining party seems to have disappeared. ccwaters 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it out; Mlnsports hasn't edited since creating the complaint and that was more than 10 days ago. Sdedeo (tips) 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ccwaters 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Gaming the System

Attempting to game the system is highly inappropriate and unethical.

MSTCrow 10:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about; given your liberal accusations to other editors, I'm not sure I care. Sdedeo (tips) 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. If you do believe that inappropriate and unethical behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia, please find another project to be a part of.

MSTCrow 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, really don't know what you're referring to. Sdedeo (tips) 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You pull another stunt like that in the Mediator Cabal, and I can and will get you blocked for clear and excessive personal attacks and lack of general decorum.

MSTCrow 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that someone with three recent blocks for personal attacks -- one of a week's duration -- is probably not a good candidate for a mediator. If it offends you, I'll bring it up on the talk page instead. Sdedeo (tips) 11:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't recent, there were only 2, and 1 was overruled, the other was simply another block from the admin who already was overruled previously. If you want to say I shouldn't be a mediator because of being personally targeted by an admin, well, that's just odd.

MSTCrow 12:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Concerning your conflict with MSTCrow, I just wanted to make clear that even though you have had a conflict with MSTCrow, it is best to assume good faith of him as I stated on the MedCab talk page. However, I just wanted to make sure that you understand how this matter looks from MSTCrow's standpoint; he sees your edits to the mediator list as a personal attack and an attempt to publically defame him. I ask that in the future if you have questions concerning an informal mediator's ability to handle cases, you speak privately with the coordinators or come join us at the #wikipedia-medcab IRC channel on Freenode. At least, keeping an eye on new mediators is very beneficial as it can stop problems from arising far in advance, though bringing it to the coordinators' attention helps, too. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at MSTCrow's edit history and history of conflicts with a large number of users. As I said, my AGF was all used up; on the other hand, I don't feel the need to push the matter and if you want to keep an eye on him I'm sure it will be fine. I don't really see a need to be secretive about things; wikipedia is all about transparency. Sdedeo (tips) 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, MSTCrow's weird threats started before I marked him as problematic on the medcab page. Sdedeo (tips) 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

MedCabal case

Just to let you know, I've closed a cabal case you were involved in. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Halvorssen

I notice you reverted that last edit, and I've also noticed you follow the article closely. I am concerned the last edit may have had some legitimacy: if Halvorssen and his father share the same name, how can we be sure the text doesn't mix the two of them? Was Jr. or Sr. the one who was imprisoned? I'm not really sure ?? Sandy 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's totally unsourced (the imprisonment thing.) Unless we have a source for it, it shouldn't be included. Sdedeo (tips) 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, as the imprisonment thing is very well sourced, and there are multiple articles about it in the Spanish-language press ... ????? I can't even understand that comment, as there are three very reliable sources there now. If it needs more sources, they are available. The problem is, if there is a father and son, which story is about which. Sandy 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this edit: [1]; I am pretty sure the article has the right person? If you have access to the CSM or WSJ archives we can check (if I remember when I get back to campus I'll do it myself.) Sdedeo (tips) 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the CSM and the WSJ articles; they say Thor Halvorssen. The question is how to distinguish Thor Sr. from Thor Jr. Sandy 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this - I can't tell if it's an accurate picture, but if it is, the poster might have been right. The person in this picture - in an article in the Venezuelan paper (one of the most reputable papers, not a tabloid or a rag) about the prison incident - seems to show an older person. [2]. Sandy 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear! Do you read Spanish? Huh. Not sure what to do; if the CSM and WSJ articles are completely ambiguous, then I would say you're right, it's the father. Sdedeo (tips) 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I may have it now. The WSJ article says: "In 1992, the Venezuelan Senate, inspired by U.S. Senate investigations, created an Anti-Money-Laundering Commission. In March of that year I was appointed special overseas investigator for that commission. Among the banks I was investigating was the now-defunct Banco Latino. It seemed inconceivable to me that this bank could move the enormous amounts of money that it did without being involved in some kind of money-laundering scheme. I alerted the U.S. Federal Reserve and the New York District Attorney's Office of my suspicions. I believed the bank was being used in a Ponzi scheme that sooner or later would have to fall. In September 1993, an informant gave me a brief with incontrovertible evidence of money-laundering in Venezuelan banks." Ok, if Thor Jr. was born in 1976, that had to be the father, right ?? (Yes, I speak Spanish.) Sandy 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense, Thor Jr. would have to be impressively precocious given the timeline! Anyway, way to go! Sdedeo (tips) 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Templeton Foundation

Re: JTF edits by Geoff.scholl

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and not sure how best to communicate on here. I am trying to mediate the issue with the edits that need to be made on the page [3]

I work for JTF and the new edits I have made have come straight from my boss; the VP of Communications for the foundation. You have commited vandalism by implying that we are politically biased in our grant-making. Also, your list of recipients and individuals involved with JTF is outdated.Geoff.scholl 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geoff.scholl -- the information is factual; if you wish to do some research yourself and come up with a list of left-wing professors the foundation has funded to balance the list, that would be the best way to resolve the situation. Simply deleting information your VP of Communications doesn't like will not stand with the community. As for an updated list of people funded, please add in additional recipients as you see fit; or (better) add a link to a webpage. PS: you can "sign" your posts by typing four ~s Sdedeo (tips) 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdedeo, that isn't how Wikipedia functions. According to WP:V, if you want to include content, the burden is on you to provide references. In this context, I would suggest you do not reintroduce the material again unless you have a reliable source. Thanks, Addhoc 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- will reference. Sdedeo (tips) 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Done. Sdedeo (tips) 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference does not apear to include the word "right". Addhoc 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, include the word "conservative", so I have put that in instead. Sdedeo (tips) 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc is right, I will remove the incorrect copy, and reference our website. Geoff.scholl 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe I am missing something, but I see nowhere in that document that it says 'The Templeton Foundation has given significant financial support to groups, causes and individuals usually considered conservative.' Also, I am not sure that the publication 'Slate' can be considered a reputable source since the focus of the publication is politically liberal [4]. Geoff.scholl 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the publication is mainstream enough to be used in the manner of "there has also been criticism". However, if you want to assert factually the foundation provides funding to conservatives, then I would suggest you require a better source. Addhoc 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this discussion to the talk page of the relevant article. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Genocide page

It was my mistake. Sorry. -- Clevelander 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hong Tran AfD

Nothing against you personally, and I do not believe your restoration of previous material was intended to promote an agenda. My point was that the material goes into a ridiculous level of depth for a non-notable person who shouldn't even have an article in the first place. Moreover, the footnotes/sources don't even support some of the statements which they are linked to. Overall, the article is being used by a Tran supporter(s) to advance a personal political agenda. I have nothing against that person advancing his/her own personal political agenda, but a Wikipedia article is not the place for it. --Nottingham 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith, both with me and others. In general, I -- and many, many others -- look very poorly on someone who deletes factual, referenced information, unless there are other circumstances. Instead of reverting, you should be more concerned with figuring out which sources are misquoted. Sdedeo (tips) 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Fair enough-- I suppose that might reasonably be regarded as not assuming good faith. Perhaps the actual matter in the article should be moved to the talk page. Best, Pianoman123 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Allen reversion--

Two reasons, in a nutshell: (1) whether Allen considers himself 'proud[ly] Jewish' can be put up to debate, on the basis of his own statements (he says he considers himself Presbyterian); and (2) even with that aside, putting that info in the intro gave it undue weight.

The article's been subject to a neutrality challenge until just about a week ago, so editors tend to treat changes w/ vigilance -- if I hadn't made the rv, someone else would probably have done it within a couple of hours. --GGreeneVa 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GGreeneVa -- it seems there was some confusion; I didn't put that edit in. It looks like a different edit I made (on a quote from Allen during Meet the Press) was mistakenly reverted by you, and then by another user. Sdedeo (tips) 22:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- hadn't even spotted that. My bad. --GGreeneVa 22:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's too bad, though, that it is getting increasingly difficult for people to contribute on articles like these in the usual wiki fashion. (I'm not criticising you here.) Sdedeo (tips) 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Sure, I'd accept a nomination. I went through a self-nom a few months back and was defeated by about a 50/50 vote. I'm a bit nervous about going through it again because I'm not sure that a supermajority of Wikipedians will understand the ongoing issues with which I'm involved. To wit, I was blocked a few weeks back by an administrator who was alerted to simmering (and still ongoing) dispute at Eric Lerner. What's more, I'm involved in so many different contentious articles regarding science and pseudoscience that I believe there are some people who will vote against me out of principle (such as User:Ragesoss who basically did this the last time). I am of the opinion that adminship is irrelevant to this, though. What I would use admin tools for would be menial tasks. For example, it'd sure be nice to have rollback and the ability to speedy nonsense delete nonsense articles. Especially since I can't, for example, set up vandalproof at every computer I use. --ScienceApologist 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll write something up. Sdedeo (tips) 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut this thing loose

I'm going to withdraw. This is a waste of time. --ScienceApologist 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Again, sorry to have dragged you into it. Sdedeo (tips) 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loop quantum gravity

Please see my comments on the talk page there. I do not appreciate what you are doing. Byrgenwulf 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for toning your comments down: we had an edit conflict, and I noticed that you had, so I toned my own response down as well. It seems we have had a very unfortunate misunderstanding, and been somewhat oversensitive about things. People have those awful little "wikistress" thermometers on their userpages...my mercury has boiled and shattered the glass into my face. And I have only been on this encyclopaedia for about 3 months! Byrgenwulf 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another request. I really, really don't like being associated with proponents of Heim theory; and I am certainly not one of the pile-in voters at ScienceApologist's RfA (I stay away from those). Is there any chance that you adjust your userpage so that it does not give the appearance that I am an irrational buffoon who randomly reverts positive contributions to scientific articles? I think you can see that I have well articulated reasons for doing what I did (I have written reams on the talk page justifying my removal), and even if we don't agree on some things, I don't agree with your classifying my edit as "removal of content I do not understand", when that is obviously not the case.

As a "peace offering", I have voted delete on the Heim theory AfD (the first), for what it's worth (although I would have anyway). I have a bit of experience in these AfDs, and would have nominated Heim theory long ago, but it just won't go through. The pile-in voters will see to that. It has too much of a cult following. But it's worth a try, I guess. Byrgenwulf 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your Talk page

I left the following by omission on your User page. Sorry. However that was the page you referred to me. I simply followed the link you left me and assumed it as an invitation for discussion.

You should have started with an explanation on the article Talk page. The way you edited the article with no explanation made YOU look like the non-scientist party. That's why I reverted you. I could have been wrong but you seemed to send all the well-known "wiki-kookism" signals. However, I made it clear that I mean the revert as temporary. And you, instead of providing the links to the relevant papers in a human readable way, started a revert war.

I accept that you may be right. Just show me the papers I should read (I have on-line access to most journals so they need not be pre-prints only). Please do it on Talk:Loop quantum gravity not on my Talk page (in fact last time you left me a message on a Talk page of a dead account I do not control - luckily I have it on my Watch).

Regards, Friendly Neighbour 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Haisch

As you may know, I've been dipping into the Citizendium thing. I'm a bit concerned about Haisch's reputation (he has been appointed managing editor). I've done some research, and this suggests he is a bona fide scientist (i.e. has many articles in peer reviewed journals, all that sort of thing). On the other hand, a number of people in the WP expert community have been extremely negative about him, and their have been very public edit wars. Trouble is, I know very little science. (I can tell you about medieval theories on the existence of God, but limited beyond there). Without being personal, what scientific evidence is there for Haisch's research. The research is covered in the Wp page linked to above. Note Haisch claims the article itself is slanted. Grateful for your views. If you don't want to make them public , I am d3uckner AT btinternet.com Dbuckner 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Edwrad Buckner[reply]

His work on inertia seems very much out of the mainstream; his founding 1999 article in Phys. Lett A appears to have gained no citations in the peer-reviewed literature by other authors.

The basic idea -- rephrasing it in more standard language -- is that particle number changes depending on reference frame. This is a classic result in quantum gravity, is known as the Unruh effect, and is related to the phenomenon of Hawking radiation; nothing controversial there. What presumably puts him out of the mainstream is that he claims this effect is sufficient to explain the classical Newton's laws.

To speculate a little -- i.e., if Bernard came up to me at a conference and told me his theory -- I would suggest that a problem might be the varying charge-to-mass ratio; the coupling of the particle to the electromagnetic field depends not on mass, but charge. It's unclear to me, for example, how the proton and the neutron could have nearly the same inertial mass if they gained it from coupling to electromagnetism. A more general problem is that the energy scales relevant to the Unruh effect are far larger than the scales at which we confirm Newton's laws.

All this is a bit beside the point. I know a number of people in the field who have had wacky ideas -- even ones that turn out to be trivially wrong! What is important is that they are willing to discuss them in a friendly, rational fashion. It can be tough to be someone with out-of-the-mainstream ideas -- many people will just ignore you or treat you with distain and it can wear you down and make you bitter. Fortunately, the fate is avoided by many. Without mentioning names, for example, I've had happy interactions with folks who contest (incorrectly) basic ideas about the big bang -- often times they are ignored because the errors they make are rather subtle and people can't immediately see them, and that makes people nervous and sometimes hostile.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that I believe the correctness of Bernard's theories are beside the point. If he is committed to the scientific community, and is willing to acknoledge his own views as marginal, then he could very well be an excellent "guardian." That said, I would be less nervous if the "guardian" was someone whose views were more mainstream -- if only because s/he would have a deeper involvement in the more relevant theories for giving a complete picture of the current state of scientific knowledge.

Sdedeo (tips) 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note — I feel quite the same, actually. Completely demoralised — when I sat down earlier to do some work I battled, because I kept on thinking of this discussion and trying to force myself to stay away and not feed the flames.

I similarly apologise for being condescending (and I have). I actually wholeheartedly agree that the article needs something on Lorentz invariance violations (arguments pro and contra), just maybe not quite as it was — we've certainly, between us, dug up enough concrete citations to do it properly. Removing your paragraph entirely was perhaps a mistake: the better thing would have been to change it. But I haven't the time at the moment, and am so impatient with the situation here that I just deleted (although ye gods this little discussion has taken enough time that the whole article could have been rewritten properly!).

I am not even a mindless defender of loops. Simp — I wouldn't bet on it being right. Sal — I wouldn't bet on string theory, either. I know the theory has lots of problems, but I just don't think that the Lorentz violation thing is one of them (although, of course, maybe there is some breaking of Lorentz invariance waiting to be discovered, and it isn't a "problem"). At the moment, I don't care. But I'm glad we can draw this to a fairly amicable close.

I am replying here because I shall be archiving my own talk page anon. Remove this as well, when you have read it, if that's what you want. Byrgenwulf 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that personally I don't mind if you delete the discussion. Fire at will. Friendly Neighbour 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]