This is an archive of past discussions about User:SkepticalRaptor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
DO NOT LEAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ARTICLE OR ANY EDIT THAT I HAVE MADE. I watch all articles that I edit (and some that I don't). Do not come to this page to say hi, because no one is a friend of mine here–any attempt in being friendly is lame. Do not come here to criticize anything I've done, because I'm uninterested in anything but editing. Do not drop barnstars, pictures, or anything on this page, because those are just lame. Don't warn me about anything, because other than editing, I don't engage in any other discussions. If you don't like my edits, revert them with a valid explanation, I'll probably fine tune it or move on. In conclusion, just stay away from my page, because I just am uninterested in engaging in conversation with anyone. If I want to talk about anything, I have Twitter and Facebook. I don't know any of you here, and to the point, I wouldn't want to know any of you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
LOL thanks! I try to keep it in check here, but snark is kind of my default setting, so it slips through sometimes. Glad someone get some entertainment out of it! DigiFluid (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoa Mr. Weller. I actually tried to fix what was written to make the other editor happy. Also, he's attacking me off-wiki pretty badly with all kinds of legal and violent threats. I know you guys don't give a shit about off-wiki attacks, but you should know. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That's bad, but I don't want to see either of you blocked, so I've protected the page for 24 hours. You are at 4RR now. I don't know what to do about the off-wiki stuff as of course neither of you are using real names. We care but sometimes it's impossible to take these things into account. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have his IP address. You guys have his IP address here. It would be easy, but I am very concerned about his ongoing abusive commentary. One of my friends thinks he's going to be violent, since I make no secret of the real person behind this name. I'm a "public" figure in skepticism, so I didn't think it matters. I think he's a 12 year old based on his off-wiki writing skills.
Nevertheless, I am not at 4RR nor is he. The last revert was over another point. The other editor needs some training on what constitutes WP:RS. He kept making a change using a Press Release. I was hoping he would actually track down the article, so I did it for him. I am amused and scared by his behavior and commentary here and off-wiki. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
One more thing Mr. Weller. You're doing something about which I keep writing (off-wiki, of course); administrators threaten individuals when there's a so-called "content dispute." The the facts are these: the impact hypothesis is simply junk science, no different than homeopathy. There are only a few articles, when weighed against the vast number of articles that do not support the hypothesis, which would indicate an emotional attachment. My original intent was to clean-up the article, because it had some inaccuracies, including calling it a theory. A theory, in science, is something that is way up the list, kind of like Evolution, essentially a fact. Then when I investigated the "theory" I found more scientific articles ripping it to pieces, including a number of articles that couldn't repeat the experimental evidence. So, there really isn't a content dispute. There is on one side a POV editor who has resorted to on-wiki and off-wiki attacks. And there's me, who has no emotional attachment to this article, just enjoy editing. I like looking up citations to see if they actually state what the writer here says they state, and since you're an admin, you must know that there are frequent issues. Anyways, not that anyone cares, I'm just stating the facts. It's not a content dispute. It's POV vs. NPOV, and I stand by the fact that NPOV, especially in FRINGE beliefs, requires extraordinary evidence. And it's lacking. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually as I'm not a Checkuser I don't have his IP address. And you must not reveal it, see WP:OUTING. And on that topic, I've just blocked a sockpuppet of his for revealing what seems to be your real name, and deleted his posts. Have you revealed your real name here on Wikipedia? And it is a content dispute by our definition, even if you are, as you may well be, correct. It doesn't give exemption from 3RR. I just saw an editor blocked who thought it did. Only reverting vandalism (by our definition at WP:Vandalism and WP:BLP violations are exempt. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not revealed my name on or off-wiki to anyone who edits Wikipedia. I've got to be honest. It's not like this is a controversial issue. I read at the top of the page something about Abortion, which I assume is a real controversial issue. At any rate, these individuals are angry about a blog posting about bad science in geology. It was innocuous to say the least. Thanks for the blocking. By the way, I understand 3RR. All I was saying was that I did not go to 4RR on any individual edit. And that there wasn't a content dispute, there was someone who does not understand policy, trying to push a POV. But, I realize that you have to do your job. And I wouldn't publish his IP address, I'd just email it to the powers that run this place. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Emailing the IP address would still be outing (I'm not sure who you mean by 'powers that be', aren't I one of them?). If necessary, a WP:Checkuser can find it if it's needed to prove sockpuppetry, but that wasn't necessary in this case. Posting Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment to his talkpage (you should read it and the linked page also). I think if you asked at WP:RSN others would say that PNAS stuff can generally be used so far as the way it's used meets WP:NPOV. The YouTube link, or at least to the page with various other links, was a problem as at least one of the videos there had National Geographic Channel material, and we don't link to copyvio stuff. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to turn off my PDA, so the email woke me up. Now I have to answer. I did not delete the PNAS stuff. I deleted the press release. I was making a point (yes, I know about WP:POINT) that the editor should find the original source. Giving up, I found it myself and added it. WP:RS, especially in science articles, demands we find the best possible source for a statement. The fact that the best that the hypothesis supporters can find is a lame article about a small lake in Mexico surrounded by volcanoes that mimic extraterrestrial stuff is amusing (and WP:SYNTH). And no, I don't think you're a power that be, especially since you don't have the all-powerful check user;don't take it personally, I know you do good work around here. You should be thankful that I don't think you're one of the powers that be, since if you actually read my Wikipedia criticisms off-Wiki, one of the things that gets my anger up is the low quality of the powers that be. And 15 year old admins who have no clue. If you're 15 years old, oops, don't take it personally, cause I don't matter much around this place. LOL. Don't worry about the off-wiki stuff. If the harassment there continues, there are other methods at my disposal to deal with it. Again, amusingly, they're arguing about their beloved article on a website rather than here–but I guess immature comments are more useful to the One Truth™ rather than forming a consensus here. I'm not sure how to describe arguing with my edits off-Wiki, but it appears to be cowardly. I just ignore them, and delete their threats and foul language in the comments. Not that I'm opposed to foul language, but my children read the stuff. OK, that's enough. Back to sleep. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to wake you up if you are getting notifications from your talk page! Yes, I forgot you'd deleted the press release, not the article - even abstracts aren't necessarily reliable sources if I recall an RSN discussion correctly. Yep, I'm not a power, and certainly a long way off from being 15, although we have some surprisingly good 15 year old editors. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You know these editors are highly emotional and don't seem to have a solid understanding of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Maybe you're not a 15 year old, but I'm not sure that these other editors are very mature. They seem to be involved with attacking editors rather than editing. We've all seen this before. By the way, yes, there are some good 15 year old editors that don't add "Tiffany is my girlfriend" to articles. I'm more concerned if they become admins, which takes some diplomatic skills. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Magic Admin dust and the edits are gone.
I think the editor is also, but the one I thought was a sock isn't and I'm unblocking them, after warning them about outing. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Is not CosmicLifeform. I thought they were the same but have evidence to show that they're not, so please don't suggest that again. If you really are sure, you can go to WP:SPI if you don't out anyone or say anything that might. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't accused him of such. You really should read what I write before making accusations, this is the second time you've erred in what I have done. Moreover, you're making assumptions about what I know and think. I have accused him of off-wiki attacks, because he has, and I have proof. It's not like either editor has hidden anything. I believe he has outed me, but you deleted that, so I can't be sure; you did leave a statement as to that effect on his page. The diff I provided was what you wrote, which did not, in any way, imply that he was a sock. In fact, the diff I used clearly stated he wasn't. I do believe that you're looking at meat puppets. Why you are getting on my ass, when I've provided evidence of their off-wiki attacks is kind of troubling. Both of these guys are awful human beings. I am not. I have done nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. However, it is clear that they can get away with on and off-wiki harassment. They can threaten me with harm. They can out me. And they can continue with personal attacks. Obviously, I can only conclude that by your coming here to beat me up, you actually have chosen to enable their non-collegial, attacking behavior, when I've done nothing wrong but make a simple edit to an obscure article. Of course, I cannot read your mind, but I can only make assumptions based on your actions. You are allowing them, through their harassment, stalking (sorry, but it is), personal attacks, and vitriolic hatred of anything I do to push me from the article, maybe even from editing. This is simply unacceptable, but I'm of the opinion you just don't care any more (again, based on the results of your inaction, rather than knowing what you care about). Given my analysis of this situation, I would suggest you no longer interact with me, and find another capable admin to deal with the two (and I know there's three, but the third one is taking the cowardly method of dealing with this). If another admin won't deal with this crap, then it's obvious that I'm wrong, and I need to find some other fun thing to do. This isn't passive aggressive, it's just that I have never been so creepily stalked in my life. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm very concerned about the off-wiki harassment, but I'm just another volunteer and very busy in real life. Take this back to ANI and see if you can get some more help, as I'm not going to be able to spend much more time on this and will probably be taking a wikibreak soon. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Yes, you were outed, but I've no reason to think that the outer knew about our policy on outing. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I can't tell. Again, go back to ANI or tell me to start an ANI discussion and I will, but I am cutting down my Wikipedia editing at the moment as I said. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess you may have a point. This article states that there is still a tiny glacier left on the northeastern face of the mountain that is estimated to be gone within 10 years. My apologies for that. (I would note however that I reacted as much to the tone of your reversal of my initial edit which i found rude, as to the substance of your point.) I have taken the article off my watchlist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·19:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I usually treat rudeness with return rudeness. That being said, you really did provide a lot of good and interesting articles. Just because we disagree, shouldn't scare you off. Maybe you or I will find a reliable source that supports the original assertion that glaciers don't exist or do exist there! My only annoyance with you was that you did not assume good faith. I think you assumed I had an agenda, probably that I was a global warming denialist. Which I am not. I am agnostic about the existence of glaciers there, I just think we should support any claims made. Don't take it off your watch list, always contribute. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, 3RR is a bright line rule and real editor or not you should expect to get blocked if you cross it. I agreed with your change and restored it, but please heed advice on edit warring, no one is exempt. SÆdontalk23:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Be honest. The other editor was being a WP:DICK. Can't get his way with RS, so complaining works instead. Ken Ham is an evolution denying cretin. Apparently, the religious editors don't want to read that. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
He wasn't a dick to me, he may have been to you but that's not really relevant and I didn't see it. I'm not giving you an order, just a piece of advice. If you had reverted again the chances of you getting blocked were pretty good, and if you said he was a dick in an unblock request the reviewing admin would have just pointed to WP:NOTTHEM. That's point #2 in the EW template: don't edit war even if you're right. There are usually enough editors who watch these pages to keep them in check, so don't worry too much. I have no problem reinserting a good edit if I see it reverted. SÆdontalk00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. Can you fix the auto confirm thing for this account? I keep getting weird symbols in the watch list for any page that I start. Thanks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Abbreviation of units
I noticed your edit to the Mount Whitney article, and several others, where you have caused {{convert}} to generate abbreviations instead of unit names. I would like to direct you to the section of the Manual of Style which says "In main text it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly." The unit names, foot and mile, are not overly long. I fact "ft." is only one character shorter than "feet". –droll[chat]03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It's amateurish to write feet. Do whatever you want, of all the crap on this project, it's the least of my concerns. Don't you think there are more important issues on this project? Don't reply, because I don't actually give two shits. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Despite attempts on the talk page....
...it seems you wish to continue reverting edits concerning the Homeopaths v Homeopathy without discussion. Hence me having to talk here :) Can you please continue discussing on the talk page, thankyou Cjwilky (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss on the talk pages rather than persist in the reversions that you have been. Its far more constructive that way. Simple and direct question here - is "skepticalraptor" your first wiki editing user account? Cjwilky (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The question above remains unanswered by you.
It seems that despite requests for you to discuss, you don't, having had yet another blitz of revertions on the homeopathy page since my last post. This is unhelpful to the editors on the page. What problem do you have with discussion? It seems that your story goes "skepticalraptor is right, so f*** you"... you've as good as said that here - is this how the future lies with you?
Can you please be careful with edits like this one? Whatever you think about Behe's credibility as a scientist, he is a living person and WP:BLP does apply on discussion pages as much as anywhere else. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I won't go away. You're wrong. I'm right. If you do this again I shall block you. Do as you wish. Act wisely. --John (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Threats? Well, I've always found threats to be the tool of the intellectually and morally weak. Not being a coward, but understanding how the game is played, Michael Behe is off my watch list. Ken Ham too. Now go give your fellow Admins a high five that you got the best of another editor, because I'm crying over here. Really sad. I'll stick with the geology articles, ok? Thanks for straightening out my simple mind. Besides, probably shouldn't write about Ken Ham, since we're having an ongoing flame war over the internet. I'm winning. He's losing. Case closed. :) OK, enjoy the beers. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Passing note
[1], [2] and [3] are all well over the line as far as maintaining a professional editing atmosphere is concerned. I'm not going to bother linking you to the relevant policies (in the usual trite fashion), because I am quite sure that you have read them already, but please bear in mind that sympathetic as I am to the goal of keeping pseudoscience promotion off Wikipedia, we have to maintain some pretence of collegiality, because otherwise the end result is lengthy arbitration cases full of tears, mass bannings, and neglected articles. There's nothing wrong with detachedly telling people that their nonsense is nonsense, but "Your opinion means what? Oh, I don't care", or implying that people are "delusional anti-science jerks" - really, no thanks. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Please point out these rules, what you call policies. You do realize that they're 1000's of them, people use them to get their way, and no one knows them all. I promise to read them. I promise not to call lame-ass anti-science cretins, lame-ass anti-sceince cretins. I'll find a better euphemism. "Sweet individuals who are slightly mistaken on what makes science." How's that? By the way, throwing a bunch of diffs--Do you think I'm an idiot who doesn't know what I'm doing? Do you know how insulting it is? Oh, right you have to do that because you have to prove to everyone how you treat another editor, and because you have that ADMIN power that makes you GOD!!!!! Don't reply. I'll find the 4000 conflicting rules myself. While I'm defecating. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You do realise that I am actually trying to help you here? Instead of responding to my post with a diarrhoeal discharge of rudeness, perhaps you could have stopped to think and consequently realised that I am not trying to play God, but prevent a future situation where you step over the line again and get blocked, causing (doubtless) vast drama on WP:ANI, hurt feelings all round, and an enormous amount of wasted time. I am very well aware of the problems that pseudoscience promotion causes on Wikipedia, and indeed many years ago I set up Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard as a place for people to talk about and discuss issues concerning fringe theories/pseudoscience/other BS, and to work on establishing a good way for Wikipedia to deal with them and their promotion. But acting like a bully and a jerk causes more problems than it solves, and if you thought about it for more than 5 seconds you would see this. Now, 5 seconds is an awfully long time, and thought is a precious commodity, but you really should see that being rude is simply superfluous and it is perfectly possible to politely dispose of the purveyors of nonsense without resorting to overheated rhetoric.
Grrr. Alright, that's that off my chest. Apologies for the snark, but please, please realise that I really do value the work you are doing and would like to see you carry on, just with slightly more light and less heat. You'll be both more effective in discussion and will have no problems in the future from anyone reporting you to my more trigger-happy brethren.
I'll stick with the fun articles. That way you don't have to threaten me too. Going into my most passive aggressive personality and say, "oh it's so painful what you've done. I promise, I'll listen to you Admin Gods."SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Acupuncture
Hi SkepticalRaptor! You've deleted RS edits from several different users at the acupuncture page without giving a rationale (stating that you find them POV doesn't count, I'm afraid). Please don't. Please let us to discuss your objections at the discussion page instead. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would endorse the above. Please don't make any more reverts at this or any other page without a serious effort to discuss in talk. If you continue like this you will need to be blocked. Please stop. --John (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed lots and lots of similarities between your edits (mainspace, talkspace, you name it) and User:Orangemarlin's. Are you a sock of the latter? If so, hello, and you need to talk to the admin who banned you before editing any more. If not, then I've confused you with another editor who was habitually uncollaborative, hostile and sometimes careless, and you need to stop being all those things. Thanks. Middle 8 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk pages
We need to be able to use talk pages to communicate. Restoring your note was not a good idea. Please don't do it again. --John (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Twice you have been asked if you have had previous wiki accounts. You failed to reply both times, forcing the threads to go into your archives. I'm not assuming this is because you have had previous accounts and that you don't wish others to know that, but other people would, and your lack of response here is not looking good. Can you categorically deny that the user skepticalraptor has had a previous account on wiki under another name? Cjwilky (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Jinxie because you have two passions. Sexual peccadilloes and evolution. Of course, the former is caused by the latter, so I'm fine with that. RW will enjoy your presence. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
(David)Stuart was so puzzled by the doomsday chatter that he wrote an entire book on the subject, The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth About 2012. In that book, one possible source Stuart points to is a 1966 book by a leading Yale researcher, Michael Coe. Though Coe never suggested that the Maya believed the world would end in 2012, he did use the word “Armageddon” in a discussion of the 13th bak’tun—and some opportunistic types may have run with that. “Mike was writing for a popular audience, and he just wanted to jazz things up a little,” Stuart says. “And 2012 was very far away.” from http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/06/secrets-of-the-maya/ Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.250 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.70.250 (talk)
No, because floating between one conversation to another to another is such a productive use of time on Wikipedia. Another case of how dysfunctional this place is. So, you make a decision elsewhere, without commentary from interested parties because why? I guess Deletion Review is the next step. This place certainly can be a bureaucratic waste of time. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-English-language content
Outside of citations,[5] external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables—per the guideline on non-English-language sites.
When linking to a site in a non-English language under the exceptions above, label the link with a language icon, available for most languages, using two-letter language codes: for example, (in Spanish), (in French), etc. Place the language label after the link (e.g. German Wikipedia(in German)).
Note that this guideline does not apply to references, which can be in any language, though English is preferred if available and equally reliable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for Wikipedia's standards for published sources that are not written in English.
it clearly says that - Note that this guideline does not apply to references, which can be in any language, though English is preferred if available and equally reliable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for Wikipedia's standards for published sources that are not written in English.
Just so you know, a lot of us were getting the information off of Twitter, so we're not going around killing people randomly. Also, "No. I see one press release from "MarketWatch". Nothing on NASA, Obama, anything reliable." Obama really is not a news source, so I really have no idea what you were trying to get at there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the article, but I was just bringing that up to you here, since I felt like it was a bit hasty, even though other sites were reporting her death at that time. Oh well, happy editing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
MMR vaccine controversy
Please stop using WP's article talk pages as a forum to vent your beliefs. I might well agree with many of them but such rants are just as inappropriate as those from "the other side". BTW I've read your talk page warning list. That's inappropriate too. If you want to build an encyclopaedia, fine. The blogosphere is that away... Colin°Talk17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we done now? I got your point, but now you've chosen to go over the edge to threats, which were absolutely unnecessary, and very immature and unprofessional, whatever snarky reply I might have given you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
RE: Reptile
I am sorry, I think you have made a mistake. You seem a bit confused. It is in fact common knowledge, that all amphibians are reptiles, but not all reptiles are amphibians. Please, do some research before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions to say that amphibians are not reptiles, when they evidently are.
Common knowledge is commonly wrong and certainly is in this case. Frogs, toads, salamanders, newts and caecilians are not reptiles, they are amphibians. Reptiles are distinct from amphibia in the following three ways: 1. Amniotic egg, 2. Dry skin and 3. pulmonary breathing. I'm happy to elaborate if you need more info, but SR is absolutely right. Sædontalk07:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize this was a troll till I checked contribs. I always find it ironic that some of the dumbest shit on WP comes from university IP addresses. Then again, most of the dumb people I meet ironically are college students (outside of the sciences, obvious). Sædontalk07:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, these rules are ridiculous. 50 new articles? I don't ever intend to be a new article writer, just edit current articles, fight vandals, and maybe write an article or two ever couple of months. Oh well. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
Your recent editing history at MMR vaccine controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Sorry if this seems uncivil, but maybe if you were acting like an experienced user and not edit warring and throwing stop hand after stop hand at the other party, there wouldn't be a need for me to have used the warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Civility isn't something that worries me one way or another. I think you need to realize that I edit bunches of articles, and the other guy just edits one and has an agenda. That should have set off alarms. Engaging in conversation with him would have not been successful. And he was at 5RR, if you hadn't noticed, and I wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Just thought you might have looked a little more carefully at the reverts. But nevertheless, technically, you are right to throw a template here! SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the last 'vandalism' revert you made was the user adding "allegedly" and "possibly" as well as changing "struck" to "removed" and getting rid of the subordinate clause (which wasn't really needed any more). My problem with that is that (no matter what the past is) that it's vandalism or a non-neutral point of view edit, it may very well be someone trying to figure out what they're doing wrong. Getting hit with warning after warning and having your edits called vandalism (when you don't see how they can be) would send anyone on the defensive (as you did when I 3RR warned you). I'm not saying it was your fault, but in content disputes (and most NPOV things are content disputes, it's better to try and engage the other side on the article's talk page and try and figure out exactly what their problems are). Can you see what I'm getting at? Sorry if the that was a bit convoluted but I'm a little tired, but I to sort this little bit out first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My alter-ego (well, this is my alter-ego I suppose) is at the front-lines of the vaccine wars. I've heard it all from those guys. They are simply science denialists. If you read Andrew Wakefield, which the editor isn't trying to clean up, you'll see precisely what was done by Mr. Andy Wakefield. He falsified data. His article was withdrawn from the journal Lancet. He medical license was pulled. He was shown to have done it purely to make money from his own patented vaccines and because he was paid by attorneys who wanted to sue the MMR manufacturers. The other editor was trying to POV the article. There is no "allegedly", all of this was done and has been proven per WP:BLP. Again, I'm not the only editor who's reverted the edits. Yeah, maybe it's not vandalism per se, but when the intent is to to "make a point", I just consider it vandalism. But you seem to be genuine in your comments, so I do get what you're saying, and I would probably change my Twinkle buttons from "vandalism" to merely NPOV violations, by which I stand firmly. So, agreed. And despite you're being tired, yeah I see your point. You must be drinking good coffee. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that one, I don't think I would have removed it (while ever it's there it says a lot about the editor, while ever it's not it doesn't). Having the ability to write an edit summary (with Twinkle's normal rollback and AGF rollback) is very helpful, and can usually go a long way to resolving disputes. My definition of vandalism is quite broad, but whenever we may be talking about any point of view (identified COI is a different matter) it's better to talk than to warn (if for no other reason people tend to get quite jumped up about it). Also most of the time (as with the example I used) it wouldn't have caused any harm to have left it there while you tried to talk to the editor (especially a new one) about it, in fact (you never know) but having seen that it wasn't reverted they may have been more interested in discussing than defending their beliefs. On another note, I don't drink tea or coffee (so I have no idea why I haven't fallen asleep) so who knows, any way I think it is time for me to sleep. Did you see the comment I left in the above section on autopatrolled? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, being around the vaccine battles, I do know the editor in question IRL (well, more specifically, their activities on other anti-vaccine websites). Yes, I know better than to "out" them, but I will admit that AGF went out the door when I saw their name (it's fairly specific). Well, I think if you read all of the comments in the various vaccine controversy articles, the "same old same old" arguments are brought up over and over again, so I think that certain editors just delete the comments or hat them. I rarely do that, because I just think it's more amusing to let their bogosity stand for themselves. It's the old free speech beliefs in me, but that's just me. Yeah, I saw your thing about auto patrol. I'll get to it later. I thought it was easier than that. I live on coffee.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I just blocked User:Ducatidave5 for 24 hours, but I felt it important to tell you that you came perilously close to being blocked as well. Do not let your frustrations with WP:SPAs with agendas cloud your judgment. Trying to claim a vandalism exemption in this kind of battle is dicey. Also, even in these circumstances, opening a topic on the Talk page shows good faith on your part, and you did not do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not letting it bother me. I actually completely forgot about the 3RR, because I was just focused on the vandalism aspect. Like I said, the editor is familiar to the pro-vax community, and I just kind of forgot that I was on Wikipedia, and not arguing with an anti-vaxxer on Facebook. LOL. I actually switch back and forth grabbing information from here, when I saw the strange edits. Oh well, it really was my bad. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with being sceptical; I am pretty sceptical myself, though we spell it differently here. Edits like this one however are rude to the point where they may well be regarded as out-and-out trolling. In an area under sanctions, which I believe homeopathy is, this is likely to lead to a block and/or a topic ban for you. If you wish to avoid this, you will wish to avoid repeating this behaviour. Best regards, --John (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
@SkepticalRaptor - Please refrain from leaving any comments on my talk page. Thank you. - Sbattles 07:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs)
Near-death experience
Stop your war edition, I add a sourced information about the origin of the term "near-death experience". What's your probleme about it ? Your lack of knowledge about this matter must not be a raison to refuse to take it into consideration.
Your recent editing history at Near-death experience shows that you have initiate an edit war. Being an administrator does not put you above the melee, you have additional rights compare to basic users, it should not drift into a despotic behavior. You are judge and jury in this case. The IP had make a correct work correctly sourced. your removals do not seem motivated by bad sourcing. --Cayau qui bique (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Sædontalk 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
