User talk:The way, the truth, and the light/Archive0

This is an archive of past discussions with User:The way, the truth, and the light. 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.

New accounts creating pages

Regarding your question on WP:AN, if you see an inappropriate page that meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, you can add an appropriate tag to it to alert an administrator. For example, if the page is patent nonsense, add {{db-nonsense}} to the page or if it is a vanity page, add {{db-a7}}. --BigDT (416) 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia is the capability for new users to participate in the creation and editing of content here. That open source nature creates an open and welcoming environment for creativity and development. A side effect of that is that there are many who would abuse that system. Hence the capability of users to revert vandalism and to report said vandalism to the administrators. Perpetual abusers may and in many cases will have their posting privileges curtailed or revoked. --Mhking 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries; and who knows, TPTB may be working on such an enhancement as we speak. But for now, this method works well. --Mhking 14:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I really apperciate it... --Mhking 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Move of Transmutation

Thanks for the move - the DAB page is up and running. Cheers! PaladinWhite 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Industrial Revolution

Can you please leave the changes made - the revert you made, changing the text back to "the Industrial Revolution is closely linked to a small number of innovations, made between in the second half of the 18th century" doesn't even make grammatical sense, and the Lunar Society is a very valid see also. Please don't revert again, Thanks, SFC9394 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I was changing to the grammatical version. The Lunar Society is mentioned in the article, but I don't think it's important enough to the topic to be linked again (are there any standards on that?). The way, the truth, and the light 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think it is useful as a see also (some readers might not read all of the article) and the LS is fairly influential - certainly as a nice representation of the transfer of knowledge and power to a new class of people. SFC9394 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use the history summary correctly

I didn't post an external link, let alone one to any website I maintain. I was moving something to the talk page done by somebody else. WP: Assume good faith, and good luck in your ongoing learning process. Cheers, ParvatiBai 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did now. Sorry. That link still doesn't belong, though. The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick note

Thanks for all your work reverting vandalism. Please remember to substitute when adding warnings to talk pages. Example: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Without doing so (as here) it causes drain on the server load. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

new articles

Please stop creating "dummy articles". If you have a grand plan for the layout of articles within Catholicism, please garner some level of consensus within the community first. IrishGuy ^talk 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what harm it does having the 'dummy articles'. Anyway, I want to use the dummy articles' talk pages to discuss it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have recreated them multiple times. Stop. Garner consensus on Catholicism and/or Roman Catholic Church, not on the talk page of an article nobody knows exists. IrishGuy ^talk 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My publication list

If you have questions about my credentials, please see my publication list. Would you care to show me your publication list? Dr. Submillimeter 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never questioned your credentials. This has nothing to do with our discussion. The way, the truth, and the light 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said at User talk:Irishguy that "I think this matter can only be decided by persons with knowledge in astronomy." I would say that I have a lot of professional knowledge in astronomy. Do you have any professional knowledge of astronomy? I honestly would like to see your credentials. Dr. Submillimeter 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not a professional astronomer; yes, I knew you were even before this message. I meant a general knowledge; enough to understand this issue, which hardly requires professional skill. The way, the truth, and the light 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you appparently lack professional astronomy experience and since you are clearly not familiar with professional astronomy references, I would suggest that you rely on the recommendations of professional astronomers like me regarding references. Don't you agree? Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. I simply can't understand why you think providing accurate information about a widely used alternate name is bad. The way, the truth, and the light 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on referenced information from reliable references. You have not provided any reliable references for your information, and you cannot simply state that something is common knowledge. Wikipedia does not work this way. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

In the past, Wikipedia had problems with obscure websites giving strange names for various astronomical objects (see this website, for example, which lists things such as the "Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy"). Therefore, we have decided to use professional resources that give reliable names for these astronomical objects. If you really want to, you could discuss the issue at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, although if you look through the archives, you will see why we decided to use the professional astronomy resources and not just random websites from the web. Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That site is not obscure, it is one of the most widely used sites about astronomical objects. Your example of 'Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy' is irrelevant - the site only lists it under 'Propositions for further names', and indeed there are almost no relevant Google hits save for that site itself.

All further discussion should be on Talk:Triangulum Galaxy, not here. The way, the truth, and the light 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Orbit redirect

OK, sorry for jumping the gun! I've placed a fuller apology at User talk:Nandesuka, where my (confused) remarks were initially made. Secondarily, I have also restored the Orbit redirect to point to the celestial mechanics article. I'll put fuller reasoning for the necesssity of that on the Discussion page there. (Sdsds - Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Comments like this are wildly inappropriate. Please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear transmutation

[1] Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWB (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

It's doesn't belong in that article - no context. It belongs with a discussion of reprocessing nuclear fuel. The way, the truth, and the light 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly the same as and more concise than the rest of that section, which covers transmutation of actinides and also discusses fission products, both of which are also part of reprocessing/treating used nuclear fuel. --JWB 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph talks about transmutation of actinides. Tc-99 and I-129 are not actinides, and I don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean. Anyway, probably the whole section starting with === Overview === should be moved to another article, as it describes a specific process of reprocessing fuel. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Transmutation is a potential means of disposal for any radioactive isotope, whether fission product, neutron capture product of fuel (minor actinides), or neutron capture product of other reactor structures. The overview sentence should state that. On examining the pros and cons for each individual nuclide (as in the link I provide), you find that transmutation by neutron capture is very valuable for actinide disposal (at least if you can use a fast reactor or accelerator instead of a thermal reactor), but is less useful for most individual fission products, because of low absorption cross-section, short decay half-life, or both. This analysis is the basic thing to understand about transmutation of nuclear waste, and belongs here. (I do not currently have analysis for the third category, activation products, though most likely they behave similarly to fission products.)

I also think it is a bit weird to have neutron treatment of reactor waste in the same article as alchemy, when the connection is little more than the word "transmutation". However "transmutation" is in fact the word used by nuclear scientists and engineers to describe the process. (let me know if you need cites) And the article is titled "Nuclear transmutation", so it makes sense to concentrate on nuclear processes. The only uses currently projected for nuclear transmutation relate to nuclear fuel (making gold out of lead, etc. are uneconomic) and talking about nuclear fuel transmutation is right on topic. --JWB 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Takes a look at what I have now - I put your addition back in, and reorganised the material. I still think you should find a different article for the stuff about nuclear waste, but this is better. The way, the truth, and the light 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will work on it more and keep an eye out for terminology and article divisions that make sense. Just for reference, another place the topic is discussed is Nuclear_waste#Transmutation but that appears to have less information than here.

What does the stuff about medieval alchemy and philosopher's stone have to do with nuclear transmutation (the article title)? Nuclear is strictly 20th century. --JWB 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy#Compromise proposal

I have suggested a compromise proposal at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy#Compromise proposal. I have also asked for additional commentary from User:Irishguy and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. If necessary, I will seek assistance from Wikipedia:Mediation. Dr. Submillimeter 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

hello

When I posted the pictures up there, i realized they would probably be removed. But why add the gay pictures The pictures I put were ok, you replaced them with gay ones. I think the right way to go is to find female photos which are nonporno. All.ya.little.triksters 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't post the 'gay' pictures; I simply reverted your addition. If pornography is not the purpose; why should we care what gender they are? The way, the truth, and the light 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Arctic and global warming.

This article needs some reference to global warming and the predicted changes that will come about in the region. This will not be easy, since there is a wide variation in the estimates of what is going to happen, and User:Manchurian candidate's contribution is, as you say, pretty insubstantial. However, it would be much better to cooperate with him/her and invite improvements rather than seeking to squelch the new section. If push came to shove, the addition been sought is not un-encyclopaedic, and it's your reverting of his additions that might appear to be disruptive. There can be little doubt that many visitors will come to the Arctic article expecting to find information on the predicted effects of climate change there. I have posted much the same comment at the Administrator's noticeboard at [2]. PalestineRemembered 13:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Sam Blacketer 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit at 03:56 UTC reverted to the version of 23:17, 11 May 2007, and was your first revert; the second was at 04:12, the third at 06:09, and the fourth block-triggering revert was at 07:27. This is exactly as reported by Simoes: you had been revert warring and broken the 3RR. Sam Blacketer 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. His report stated that 'several users had objected'. I don't consider it an objection unless the user takes the time to post on the talk page. No one else had supported him there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only made 3 reverts. In any event, User:Simoes continues to lie.

Decline reason:

reason —you deleted the same text four times: someone had put it in so its four reverts. You did produce arguments and the delete looks pretty valid to me but that's not the point. The point is you should stop before reverting a fourth time and wait for someone else to take up your point of view BozMo talk 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No one else cares about the truth enough to support me, that's obvious. 2 users explictly supported me on the talk page, and you just did, but none actually made the edits. In contrast User:Simoes can get User:Shot info to do hit-and-run editing for him, as they're both part of a clique that only wants to score points against pseudoscientists and doesn't mind disrupting pages to do it.

In any case, my first 'revert' was for the purpose of removing the previous user's questionable edits, and only incidentally removed the disputed stuff (which had been added 3 days before). That really shouldn't count. The way, the truth, and the light 12:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be sure that I know exactly what the edits were. Hmm. I find it difficult to get motivated to watch a page which looks a bit pointless to me but I will put it on my watchlist. --BozMo talk 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't need to be blocked any longer; I'm not going to edit the disputed page again today, anyway. The fact that User:Simoes has not responded on his talk page proves that he acted in bad faith, and continuing my block would only further his lies and harassment.

Decline reason:

Three reverts is not an absolute entitlement; the purpose is to prevent revert-warring. Your actions violate the spirit of the law (and, for that matter, the letter). If you have no plans to edit again before the block expires, unblocking is moot in any case. The block will expire shortly; in the future, please discuss, seek consensus, or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit-warring. Continuing to edit-war after the block expires will end up resulting in a longer block. — MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This admin is obviously taking his side. You blame me entirely for the 'revert war' and, worse, misunderstand that I requested unblocking not to edit the disputed page but to edit other pages. I make many edits to Wikipedia other than this and it's ridiculous to block me from all of Wikipedia for this stupid argument. The way, the truth, and the light 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you repeat User:Simoes's lies that I have not attempted to discuss the issue, or that a consensus exists against me. You fail to realize, or ignore, that he has not been willing to discuss for the past few days, as I pointed out. The way, the truth, and the light 06:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally I can't discuss it if I remain blocked! The way, the truth, and the light 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above. The previous admin is obviously biased against me.

Decline reason:

Crying admin bias is not a good way to get unblocked, but repeatedly adding{{unblock}} to your talk page is a good way to get it protected. — John Reaves (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The way, the truth, and the light 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem to be that bias by one admin is the major reason to believe that a block was unjustified (which is supposed to be why an unblock is warranted), other than simple mistake of fact (which should be rare). I suppose I can add you to that classification, since you refused to look at any of my arguments. Note that I did not accuse bias on the part of the first two admins, since they did not seem to be - but I guess you simply want to believe that I'm just whining and am solely motivated by a desire to continue reverting. It's simpler that way, isn't it? The way, the truth, and the light 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR is one of the less flexible policies. Admins generally don't have discretion to consider arguments of the kind you originally raised (no talk page explanations, consensus/no consensus, etc.) -- four reverts = block, with no further inquiry (BozMo even suggested he agreed with you from a content perspective, as do I). Just wait it out... Fireplace 07:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR page specifically says that a user that violates 3RR may not be blocked i.e. it is not automatic. Of course, that is probably just as credible as literally reading other Wikipedia policies, such as the one you enforced against me at Homosexual agenda. And of course admins do have such discretion - why? Because I can't imagine any admin being desysopped for considering such arguments in a neutral fashion, which implies that they do, in fact, have such discretion, even if they pretend otherwise. The way, the truth, and the light 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case I didn't violate 3RR from my perspective - I only made 3 real reverts. Similarly, I made 5 reverts within hours at Arctic a few days ago, and was not reported. I do not feel I broke 3RR there, either, since 2 of those reverts were against a user who'd mistakenly identified my removal as vandalism. The limitation ought to apply only to reverts clearly intended to further the edit war, but obviously they can't enforce that consistently. The way, the truth, and the light 09:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing this affair proves is that my block is, in fact, punitive, as it is clearly designed to punish me for what I did, (which is, de facto, dissenting from User:Simoes's gang). I believe Wikipedia's assertions that blocks aren't punitive like I believe the criminal justice system's assertions that probation isn't punitive i.e. not at all - both may have started that way, or at least have been intended that way; however they get converted into punitive tactics by the continual habit of lying by their supporters. The way, the truth, and the light 08:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Bowers etc.

The content that you added to Uniform polyhedron was already deleted via afd. If the result of a discussion is delete, it means the content will get deleted, not pasted somewhere else. Trying to get around an afd result by pasting the content somewhere else and creating redirects from the deleted titles is disruptive and unhelpful, so stop doing it. Thanks. - Bobet 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The remainder of this discussion has been moved to Talk:Uniform polyhedron.

Vandalism?

Im sorry but how is it vandalism? Corrie is a very common nickname of Coronation Street, and far more people who search for "corrie" will be looking for Coronation Street rather than the geographical feature. if you feel differently, then i propose a disambiguation page. ^DAVID _CAT 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I saw you had several warnings before and assumed you were a trouble maker account. I restored your redirect and added a note at the top of the page. If anyone objects, I won't restore it. The way, the truth, and the light 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually

I was specifically not trying to clutter the deletion review on purpose. Don't you think it's long enough? Friday (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If new arguments are introduced, it should be there.

It certainly is rather long, though! The way, the truth, and the light 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrie

Please do not revert this again. A corrie is not the same as a cirque, a cirque is formed from a group of corries, which often originally formed the head of one or more glaciers. A corrie is a single feature. Different form a cirque, different from an arrete. Even if it was not, the dab page would belong at corrie, since we don't allow nicknames for soap operas to take precedence over names of geological features which are part of the language. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Both articles say they're the same thing. A cirque is used to describe a single feature, and I've never encountered the distinction you're maintaining. Anyway, there's no reason such couldn't be mentioned in the single article Cirque.

The soap-opera nickname was introduced by another user and I decided then to defer to him because he correctly asserted the use that is more common; there's already a disambiguation page anyway at Corrie (disambiguation). The way, the truth, and the light 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the two geological terms are distinct. The articles make this clear. Especially, the corrie article makes the distinction clear. The user "correctly" asserted? {{fact}}. Corrie is a word which has passed into the language and forms part of place names. Informal names for soap operas do not override formal names of geological features. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's forget about the soap-opera nickname for now. Both articles say the terms are synonymous - Corrie now says '... in France the term is cirque.' and Cirque has 'A cirque is also known as ... a corrie in Scotland and Ireland'. Both were there before I edited them; I decided to redirect to cirque as that article is longer and better written, and corrie didn't say anything not in cirque. The way, the truth, and the light 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back in time to when I was an amateur geologist. Cwm/Coombe/Corrie - synonymous terms for the glacial feature as described in corrie, but cwm is also generic Welsh for valley. Corrie is the term used in Scotland, Coombe more often in England, though again I have seen it used to describe a more generic hollow valley not evidently of glacial origin, if I could remember where. A cirque, as used by those geologists I was around, was a group of these glacial features combining to form a large area. So that's my understanding. All of which means that at the very least revert-warring on your part is inappropriate. Now, I'm happy to hear about your experience of the use of these terms, but that's how I understand it, and that's the basis on which I'm looking at how to proceed; probably there needs to be a larger article discussing all the terms, and some redirects. As to the soap opera, it's pretty unliekly that anyone is going to go to an encyclopaedia expecting the article on Coronation Street to be anywhere other than at Coronation Street. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now that you are giving an explanation of your edits, I can assume good faith here and not believe you're just harassing me because of the other dispute.

I have personally not heard of this definition of cirque - if true, it ought to be noted. Here's what I am going to do: I will tag your assertion at cirque, propose the merger of corrie into cirque, post to the glaciers project about it (if I don't get a response there, to the geology project), and finally put in an RM to move Corrie (disambiguation) to Corrie - the fact that there's any argument about where corrie should go is a good reason for its being a disambiguation. The way, the truth, and the light 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hanging valley

Stop unilaterally redirecting this article to valley. A hanging valley deserves it's own stub at least. It is a glaciological formation that is distinct. I have no idea why you keep combining all these articles into the valley one.--MONGO 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...I'll take care of this later, looks like your already arguing about Cirques and Corries and related issues.--MONGO 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you approved the mergers when I made them, see Talk:Valley#Rewrite and merger. Please take any further discussion there. The way, the truth, and the light 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing warnings

Hi, thanks for your contributions to keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism. I noticed that some of the warnings that you left on user talk pages were unsigned. Please try to remember to sign in future. Not only does it identify you to the person to whom you left the message, but it assists other recent change patrollers to make decisions on warnings. As a rule of thumb, the more recent the last warning, the more severe the next warning will be. An anonymous poster who has not been warned in months is most probably not the same individual who received the last warning. Being able to determine the time elapsed between warnings is very useful. Regards LittleOldMe 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences

I would support deletion for this article but I have little hope that it would be deleted. Many proponents of scientism do simply want an article they can use to belittle their pet hates and have no interest in producing a balanced account that properly deals with the subject at hand.Davkal 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation on CGM

That had been the plan, but then User:Nick deleted the archive page again citing BLP concerns. I asked him about it, and he said it was a BLP thing, and that we could satisfy the GFDL without making all the prior revisions actually visible, but rather just giving a list of the revisions and their authors. I read over the GFDL text and I think that's correct. I was trying not to be on any "side," although I was sort of offended that David Gerard didn't discuss with me when overturning my action. I do think that a lot of those revisions are questionable in their treatment of the subject, but I personally think it's no big deal for them to exist in the history: frankly, the coverage of her at the main page has the same kind of tone, and old versions don't show up on web searches. Mango juice^talk 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The principle of evil

If you'd like to have your article undeleted, please do not re-create it and put a request on the article page. Instead, you can submit the article to Deletion review. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[[Power (sociology)|Power]] is evil and evil is power. This is an awesomely strong statement; tyranny and hypocrisy can not stand before it. For how can evil be done than through power - and power is used to do evil, as those that have power deceive even themselves about their use of power. Tear down power and tear down evil; expose power to the light and evil shirks. For no one with power can be trusted to report on the use of that power, but there are always those that will. Censorship is used to prevent this, all the censorship that really matters has this as its root justification. If censorship is destroyed, those that will report will do so - and power shrinks and evil does not prevail.

--MZMcBride 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

The comment places demands for a source that are supported by neither WP:V nor WP:RS. Any combination of sources will suffice to support the content, not just a single source. FeloniousMonk 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the tag should be removed, I would think. I'm going to comment on this further at the article's talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Megafauna/Pleistocene megafauna

Howdy, I made some changes to the Megafauna and Pleistocene megafauna articles. In recognition of your block, I will be happy to discuss the changes on your talk page, if you are not unblocked. I'll check back here. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For the Megafauna article, Ethel's edits need not be considered, obviously. You said you'd add more on charismatic megafauna, I would think that belongs in the Charismatic megafauna artcle, unless it is to be merged back in. You have said you'd further discuss your plan at Talk:Megafauna and it seems you haven't yet.

On the other article, I would prefer to revert to my version, except for including the source you added. I see on the article's talk page you don't like my statements against the theory - OK, I guess you can remove them. I think it's important to mention, though, that this disease would have to be more virulent than any disease we know about.

At least, the stuff about dogs, all but one sentence added by Ethel, should be condensed and rewritten into a separate paragraph. The way, the truth, and the light 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am still a bit unclear on why EA wanted the version s/he was reverting to on the Megafauna article. It is probably wise to let the merge discussion continue and hold off on merging the articles for now, however I think your edit to mention charismatic megafauna was entirely appropriate. My read of the talk page seemed to indicate there was some consensus for at least mentioning charismatic megafauna, and the link to Pleistocene megafauna seemed like a smart thing to do. Maybe EA can point out why it is not.

On Pleistocene megafauna, I am curious the notability of the citations EA can come up with for canine distemper causing the hyperdisease. I believe it was one of the diseases Ross MacPhee is/was looking for. As far as the notability of it, I wholeheartedly agree that hyperdisease is a distant third in terms of evidence, behind human hunting and climate shifts (or if you believe the recent GSA abstract, climate shifts caused by bolide impact). I am hesitant, however, to put my view into Wikipedia since I don't have a source (although I haven't looked at the literature carefully for years so there may be one) which actually says "most" scientists don't agree with hyperdisease. What it comes down to, for me at least, is not what I believe, but what I can cite. --TeaDrinker 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think at this point that EA is a good-faith editor. He hasn't provided any citations despite saying that he can. Nevertheless the hypothesis should remain in the article.

There is no evidence at all for the hyperdisease theory; it is ad hoc at best. This theory was clearly invented by those scientists that simply are not willing to accept that primitive man caused extinctions, and now realise that the climate-change theory is flawed. In my opinion, it should be fine to state this in the absence of a source showing that the hypothesis does have wide support.

Because of this contemptible cowards' block on me, it seems that EA will be unblocked before I am and he will start again to screw with the megafauna article if no one stops him. The way, the truth, and the light 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For myself, I am unwilling to say that EA is causing a problem; repeated reversions are a pretty common error in judgement. As far as the content, I tend to agree that hyperdisease has little evidence (although I should note I tend towards climate, but believe there is great uncertainty), but what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be cited is key, or so the policy on editing is written. There are, I think, a handful of hyperdisease adherants among professional researchers, so we should include what they say and what others say about their work. Mindful, as I think you're getting at, of avoiding undue weight being given to the viewpoint.

These articles on late Pleistocene extinction are a fair sight better than when I first saw them (though no fault of my own), but I think they still need some substantial work. How would you feel about getting some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals group? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given Ethel Aardvark's communications to this point, I doubt he will be able to make any useful contributions. I don't believe that sources can ever replace one's judgement, even if we had complete sources, which we don't at these articles (yet). Of course, I think that we can write the hyperdisease section in an acceptable way that is not overtly POV while avoiding undue emphasis. The way, the truth, and the light 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you have been reported for a 3RR violation on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and given your repeat offense I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please take the time to read WP:3RR even more carefully than last time. I would suggest that you try to restrict yourself to 2RR or less from now on, just to be safe, especially on this entry. In general, reverting will not get you far - collaboration will. I hope you take my words to heart, and come back to edit productively and within our rules. Thanks, Crum375 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reasons I posted to the 3RR report against me remain valid, and the blocking admin did not even comment on them. Also, my behavior here is not edit-warring; I am trying to have a civil discussion about the article and not stubbornly reinserting the same material. The last time I committed 3RR on this article, the page was protected rather than blocking me, and this seems to be the same kind of situation - there is no clear consensus, and multiple parties on both sides.

Decline reason:

Respectfully, I must disagree. The answer to someone who refuses to discuss is not to edit war with them. The answer is to follow the proper steps for dispute resolution. Whether or not someone else violates 3RR should not affect the actions that you can control of yourself. — After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Also, Ethel Aardvark (talk · contribs) has just committed 3RR on Pleistocene megafauna. After having been warned just two days ago, he reverted 4 times in 3 hours, and he has no justification whatever, having refused to discuss anything and continued to revert to his version. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the blocking admin above implied that I had been only reverting not not attempting to collaborate, which is clearly false. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FM's recent comment to my 3RR report accuses my of editing by reverting at other articles - presumably he is talking about Pleistocene megafauna and Megafauna, where I have little choice but to revert since Ethel Aardvark, the only person opposing my edits, refuses to discuss. I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology about him for this reason. The way, the truth, and the light 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The admin declining my unblock request above accused me of edit warring, which given the history which plainly shows the contrary is a serious insult. Whatever is happening on the megafauna articles should not affects my blocking here, anyway; I only cited that to counter a possible attack, which FM just indeed used in his comment at the 3RR report, and also to show your inconsistency in not blocking him for blatant disruption while blocking me for good faith efforts to edit and discuss.

In addition none of you have yet responded to my arguments. My violation of 3RR was entirely unintentional. When I was blocked, I was just about to post again to the article's talk page asking about the latest edits and attempting to reach agreement.

As to After Midnight's comment that I should instead use dispute resolution, I am not averse to such techniques and am willing to use them against any opponent that seems to be acting in good faith, however, is is fairly clear Ethel Aardvark was not given his blind reverting at Megafauna. Also, I did post at the wikiproject page about it, which is a form of dispute resolution. The way, the truth, and the light 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The previous admin seems to have decided based on (a misinterpretation of) my behavior at another article. I surely do not deserve a 48 hour block as my violation was quite unintentional and consisted of good-faith edits (see evidence below). Also, none of my argument above or at the 3RR report has been answered.

Decline reason:

Wikilawyering. You were edit warring, you were asked to stop, you didn't. Guy (Help!) 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As to the violation being unintentional, it was just 1 minute short of 24 hours and over 2 subjective days. The first time I knew that I may have violated 3RR was Jayjg's warning on my talk page, which, as you can see in my contibutions, I removed at 2:33, when I first looked at it. At 2:27, 6 minutes before that, FeloniousMonk had edited the article to a compromise wording, making a self-revert impossible even when I determined (from examination of the history)) that I had in fact violated 3RR. Since the compromise wording is acceptable to me (as was mentioned in the post I was about to make at the article's talk page when I was blocked), I have no reason to continue reverting over it. The way, the truth, and the light 04:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was never 'asked to stop', in the sense of a warning, before my last revert. I should add, as well, that 'wikilawyering' is an empty pejorative in this context and that you are not really neutral with respect to me. Finally, you still have not responded to any of my argument here or at the 3RR page. The way, the truth, and the light 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ethel Aardvark, the user with whom I was engaged in revert warring at the other articles, has now been blocked after violating 3RR on a second article, Megafauna. The way, the truth, and the light 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone thinks my removal of Jayjg's warning was a hostile act or indicated comtempt for Jayjg or the message, he is wrong. I have a usual practice, which I have followed since the beginning, of removing messages after reading them when the message's only value is in being read once by me; this is not limited to warnings, as you could see if you went through the history. The way, the truth, and the light 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been said many times that 3RR blocks are not meant to be punitive. To illustrate, compare my block to that of Ethel Aardvark, who I just interacted with. He refused to discuss and continued to revert to his version over and over and therefore his block was justifiably preventive. My block was just as clearly not, I never continued to revert to my own version, and any doubts that I would should have been dispelled by my explanation. The way, the truth, and the light 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Viridae commented on my block here. His statement that I was about to post to the talk page when blocked is proved by the section above, in which my message just 2 minutes before the block says just that (I did not expect to be blocked, as my explanation at the 3RR page should have sufficed for any reasonable person). The way, the truth, and the light 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To make things short (as I may have argued at excessive length), my edits clearly were not the conduct for which 3RR is designed, as all my argumentation has been showing. The 3RR explicitly says that a block is not mandatory for violating it, and that it is intended to prevent 'sterile edit warring', which could not possibly describe my conduct. My violation was clearly an accident, in any case - had I known I would have waited 2 minutes longer to make the last revert. I was reported by an editor (Jayjg) who had never been involved with that article, presumably because of the dispute at Holocaust denial. Finally, I was unable to self-revert, because of FM's intervening edit, as I showed. The way, the truth, and the light 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A 48 hour block is totally unjustified and prevents me from doing all the other work I do on Wikipedia - I am far from a single purpose account. Anyone can look at my edit history (now over 2,000 edits) and see that I am not a generally disruptive editor, nor do I mean to be. This is a massive case of assuming bad faith. You still have not responded to any of my argument, of which I give a short summary in the preceding paragraph.

Decline reason:

I am sorry that you feel WP:3RR should not apply to you given that you do many other edits but I assure you this is not the case. You are still bound by Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the block was entirely valid. In fact, it was shorter than we normally hand out for the third violation and I assure you that if you continue edit warring in the future, you are likely to be blocked for considerably longer. — Yamla 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And the insulting of me continues, by ignoring the unblock request above. The way, the truth, and the light 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is now hard to assume good faith about anyone in this matter. Especially, the above unblock request was declined with the usual lies: characterizing my actions as 'edit warring', which they were not - and I wouldn't repeat that claim unless I were absolutely sure - summing up my argument as '3RR shouldn't apply to me', a gross oversimplification at best, and worst of all claiming that a 48 hour block is actually short for the third time a user has violated 3RR - definitely not true from my examination of various users. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the response above appears to say that it should not matter that I 'do many other edits'. In practice, of course, users having a history of contributing productively are treated more leniently than those that don't (which is as it should be); to claim otherwise is dishonest. If anyone thinks that my use of 'lies' and 'dishonesty' are personal attacks, let him know that they are not. I call a spade a spade; lies and dishonesty deserve to be called lies and dishonesty. Anything less is inaccurate. The way, the truth, and the light 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Decline reason:

Unblock abuse — Yamla 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The preceding request, of course, was a joke. It can't be unblock abuse as, when I posted it, another request was already pending (due to the refusal of anyone to respond) so that I was already on the unblock list. Since, as actually occurred, the two unblock request would be processed at the same time, it did not cause me to appear on that list any more, and thus it was quite harmless. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake on Talk:Megafauna. Incidentally, I got your emails, but somehow the address does not come up as valid--they bounce back as undeliverable when I try to reply. My apologies. --TeaDrinker 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just sent another e-mail with the address in the text. Try sending there. The way, the truth, and the light 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, thanks for repairing my inadvertent delete of Royalguard's agreement with me. DrKiernan 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

Can we discuss this, please? For example, much of the information that was in Water torch, was not copied into Oxyhydrogen, but was deleted; I would appreciate a discussion of why to remove this information. Anthony Appleyard 09:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The removed information was not appropriate for the encyclopedia, being written like an advertisement or an instruction manual. It's still in the history, so you cann re-add it in a more appropriate style if you want. The way, the truth, and the light 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

Howdy. Whats going on here? With regards, Navou 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a spammer/vandal - see User talk:Bully-Buster-007 and this for more about his disruptions.

Here's the activity of his latest accounts: [3] [4] [5]. If you see anything like this, revert the edits and report the account for vandalism (if it isn't already blocked). The way, the truth, and the light 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear transmutation

Oh Truthful and Enlightened One,

Did you intend to remove the section "Photoneutron process" from the article Nuclear transmutation in your minor-labeled edit on 28 April 2007? --mglg_(talk) 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I shouldn't have marked it minor. I thought it was too specialized for that article, as well as lacking appropriate context. The way, the truth, and the light 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat_%28thermodynamics%29&action=history

Hi: I don't struggle with the substance of your change but now the pic at the top overrides text again.... --Achim 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

5 O’Clock Charlie

Thanks^[6] -- just like the 4077th, I'm starting to get pretty used to this guy coming around every day! --A. B. ^(talk) 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit-warring at Heat and Thermal energy for a period of seventy-two hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never did violate 3RR, I reverted only as many times as ScienceApologist did, and I saw his edits as disruption and attempting to short-circuit discussion. Please at the least shorten my block to 24 hours.

Decline reason:

Declined. Suggest seeking dispute resolution or reporting the other user to 3RR or posting to Admin Noticeboard in the future instead of reverting. Please assume that the length of the block will increase each time you are blocked for 3RR. — After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Of course, I did not actually violate 3RR, and I did report him as soon as he did. Further, he continues to claim that I don't understand physics, after my post (on Talk:Heat (disambiguation)) making it clear that I do know the relevant distinction, and used dishonest edit summaries when removing the merge tags (saying that there was no discussion on the talk page, and implying that I had made the proposal, both wrong); this seems to indicate that he was editing in bad faith. The way, the truth, and the light 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See previous paragraph and unblock request. It seems the last reviewer either was dishonest or refused to look at my stated reason.

Decline reason:

Previous unblock decline was valid. Please wait out your block. — ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Anyone can see that the previous decline was not valid; as it was based on lies, lies that you are thus perpetuating. In addition, that decline shows that the pretence that 3RR blocks are preventive is a complete joke, and I don't mean the funny kind. Quite unfunny, in fact. The way, the truth, and the light 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I was also going to decline with the reason: "Someone else violating restrictions or the rules does not give you free license to do the same. You are familiar with what is acceptable and not acceptable. In the future, please refrain from actions you know are wrong. If someone is being problematic, please use the appropriate noticeboards but refrain from escalating the situation by edit warring." Vassyana 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you mean violating 3RR, I am quite sure I did not exceed 3 reverts on any of the articles, and the histories will show it. I at most mean that my actions were justifiable, not that they were good - and to my credit, I already had started discussion at various places about it.

In two previous situations with problem editors, I had done the same things and not notified anyone until I reached 3 reverts; you can hardly claim that I learned that that is unacceptable. The way, the truth, and the light 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that you have a right to three reverts. Please be advised that this impression is incorrect. If you continue to edit war vigorously, you will find yourself blocked more often, and for longer periods of time. If you find yourself in conflict with another editor over the content of an article, I strongly suggest that you discuss the issue, and try to convince others, on that article's talk page rather than edit warring. Nandesuka 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a mathematics game. I suggest you take a good look over Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, WP:GAME and WP:TE. Until you demonstrate that you understand these rules of courtesy, you will not get someone to unblock you. It is also likely in the absence of such understanding that you will continue to run into blocks as long as you edit war with other editors. You may also want to consider that you shouldn't rile up other users and shouldn't escalate conflicts. Please take this advice into consideration. Vassyana 10:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I never tried to play a game. I was not trying to game 3RR any more than he was, nor was I violating those guidelines any more than he was. True, I should avoid creating conflicts, but I think it's pretty obvious this one was created by him; when I am facing just one editor that doesn't seem to be acting in good faith, courtesy is not the first thing I think of. The way, the truth, and the light 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know exactly why I was blocked, even if I don't agree with it. I know that the rules, such as 3RR, do not forbid my block, but they don't require it either. Revert warring is definitely my last choice for handling conflicts, and if I had had more time to think I probably would not have. Could it have been done better on my part? Of course. Would I do if differently in the future, faced with exactly the same situation? Probably.

Now I try to assume good faith until the contrary is demonstrated - if I have ever violated that I apologize - and I would hope you do the same. Pursuant to that, I try to engage in discussion - if we all are editing in good faith, we should be able to come to a consensus. And indeed, for some time, there has been discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question, and there have been several comments since my block - on both sides. I am and always have been willing to have a reasonable discussion with anyone - that is, one that includes reciprocal assumption of good faith and presenting one's argument honestly. The way, the truth, and the light 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The way, the truth, and the light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See especially the previous note. I can do nothing more to demonstrate that this was an honest mistake at most. It has been a day since I was blocked, which is surely enough to defuse the immediate situation.

Decline reason:

Previous blocks were valid. Please wait out the duration of your block and do not abuse the unblock template. — ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What do you mean, 'Previous blocks were valid'? I assume that you most likely meant 'previous unblock review' - in that case, you are surely wrong; they reviewed nothing, so they can not be valid reviews. If you do mean my blocks I agreed just above that this block is valid, meaning not against policy, as was the previous one. But blocks are almost never truly against policy, and that fact does not mean that is it fair or a good idea. It is of course clear that you are now enforcing the block purely to punish me - and for what? It is a general principle that punishment is appropriate when the person punished has intentionally done something wrong, but if anything is clear here, it is that I have not intentionally done wrong. The way, the truth, and the light 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

You recently reverted an edit of mine on Oxyhydrogen. I have discussed my reasons for makign it at some length on Talk:Oxyhydrogen, I would appriecaite a response from you. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Industrial revolution & the Protestant work ethic

Hi,

Considering that the whole section on the protestant work ethic is about why the work ethic could be the reason the industrial revolution occured in Britain and not somewhere else, why wouldn't the protestant work ethic section be a sub-section of "causes in Britian"? Seems to me the only alternative would be to change the title of "Causes in Britain", but I can't think of what to change it to. --kop 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like sub-sub-headings if they can be avoided. But you're right, given the way it is currently written. Change it back if you want to. The way, the truth, and the light 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. By the way, thanks for cleaning up the rest of the headings the other day. Don't know how those extra equal signs got in there.--kop 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

Re this edit: [7] When you revert, please begin your edit summary with the word "revert" or "rv". As far as I can see, you haven't provided any explanation anywhere to the user whose edit you're reverting as to why you're reverting it. Even vandalism deserves an explanation such as a {{test}} template, and this was a good-faith edit. --Coppertwig 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

3rr

You have 4R at Climate of Mars; since you've only fairly recently had a long block for edit warring I suggest you self-rv before its too late William M. Connolley 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have 3 reverts to my original edit, which you have reverted 3 times. I might not have made the last one had you responded on the talk page. Obviously, I am not going to discuss my edits further if you only wish to revert and then threaten a block. The way, the truth, and the light 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree William M. Connolley 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

3/4/5 reverts - it doesn't matter you were edit warring and then tried to justiofy your actions by claiming that you were discussing on the talk page. There seems a very thin discussion for the amount of reverting you did. At what point will you learn to stop disrupting articles and start using talk pages properly to reach a consensus - an that includes waiting long enough for other editors to respond. You seriously should consider a voluntary 1RR when you come back in a week. My disruption blocks escalate and the next one could be your last. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, Connolley is at least as guilty as I. I justified my original edit, which I though shouldn't be too controversial, on the talk page. I received a reply to it, then I replied again after making my first revert. I also attempted to explain in my edit summaries. Connolley then made two more reverts without further explanation, as did I. After the third revert, still assuming good faith, I started a new section on the talk page to explain in more detail. He only replied to this after filing a 3RR report. I don't think I can be accused of not discussing.

It's interesting that you would accuse me of 'disrupting' the article, because one of my contentions in the dispute was precisely that he was disrupting the article by using it to argue an unrelated topic (anthropogenic global warming on Earth); the paragraph I had removed certainly gives that impression to me. He was also arguably misusing sources - but this is irrelevant here: he should not be blocked solely for a content dispute, and neither should I. The way, the truth, and the light 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course you accept no responsibility whatsoever for the events that led to your block. Clearly I will be seeing you at AN3 again won't I? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you could mean by me not accepting responsibility. Of course, the revert war happened and it ideally should not have. Both of us did stop after 3 reverts. As I outlined above one can't claim that Connolley was any less guilty than I was. If you are an honest man you could not deny that. I was of course editing in good faith, and not stubbornly going against consensus; that is also clear from the history. The way, the truth, and the light 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At the current time, there is an NPOV tag on the the climate change section that I put there because of WMC's tendentious edits. Ben Hocking has kindly offered a sandbox to resolve the issues. In good faith I'm developing the section there (version A) while the AGW crowd seems not to be bothering). I try to get out of "edit wars" by simply not reverting, instead changing what is wrong to a correct, though distinct version in a search for truth. So far I haven't been locked. You might want to try the tactic. If you want to continue to contribute to the "mars global warming" section (which was its original name when I created that page before its merger into climate of mars), take a look at the sandbox. TMLutas 16:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)