Holland-it

Warning

Statements such as this can be construed as personal attacks. Please refrain from characterizing people and stick to discussing content. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Science Apologist, your edit history makes clear that you have no intention of debating with the other users in a fair way about cold fusion. You think you already know everything about the subject and are here to make sure that the page reflects what you think is "scientific truth". I have not taken the matter to admins just because I don't know the exact procedure to be used here on en.wiki. You are exhasperating Jed Rothwell with your replies, then when he's good and enraged and as such making unconsidered moves you try to turn them against him and get him banned. You have made patently false statements ("Nothing has changed since 1989"). I confirm what I have previously written: you believe that shouting louder than the others will get you victory. And the sad thing is, you are probably right. --Holland-it (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the above warning? I have asked you in good faith to comment on the content, not the contributor. You have seemed to miss the most important point: this is not a contest of personalities nor is it a place to debate. We are here to write an encyclopedia. I am going to ask you one more time to refrain from characterizing what I "think" or what I "believe". I'll chalk this one up to not understanding the way this particular wiki-community works, but if you continue to characterize my person rather than working on improving content, I will escalate this to other avenues of dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Holland-it, I have two simple questions for you. You stated 'the usual group of would-be scientists' and accused Apologist of 'shouting louder than the others'. Now, WP:CABAL aside, who are you accusing of being 'would-be scientists'? Apologist can be abrasive, but he knows his science. I suspect I personally know several of the other editors you would include in the 'would-be scientist' category, and can say that at least one is a professional physicist. Second question: are you in fact making personal attacks against Apologist/other editors, are you trying to make people angry (see flaming), or do you have some other reason for saying what you have said? If you are trying to be disruptive, then I'm afraid Apologist has a pretty good case. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)