Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Pproctor! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Netsnipe (Talk) 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as your changes to the Raymond V. Damadian page, are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.
Unconstructive edits, vandalism? nonsense. The page on Raymon V Damadian contains numerous factual errors and much evident confusion about the technology which I was just attempting to correct. I'm and MD PhD who was there when all this stuff was going on. Even published papers in the field and know many of the princopals. See my comments at Talk:Raymond V. Damadian
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi PP. You recently asked about my background and whether I had the expertise to edit the Damadian article. Well, let me answer you. I'm currently a graduate student at the Robarts Research Institute, in the imaging department. My thesis involves using novel pulse sequences to exploit the signal properties of magnetic perturbers and I recently wrote a review about the history of NMR and MRI. So while I may not be an MD/PhD (a fact that you boast about frequently), at least I'm doing work in the area. If I'm not mistaken, you're a hair transplant surgeon, aren't you? 72.139.184.107 23:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You're right. It was wrong to think that I, a graduate student writing pulse sequences, would know how T1 and T2 work. It was foolish to argue with someone who did MRI 30 years ago and now sells hair tonic. My bad.72.139.185.19 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
More to the point- Wikipedia does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
To the contrary, Wikiopedia does value expert input and actively solicits it. E.g., there is this banner on uric acid : "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can..." I took this as an invitation. Apparently mistakenly. Pproctor 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Can I suggest that you take a look round at other article to see how they are written, before. You may be inserting valid content but it is so badly written that it's going to take someone twice the time it took you to write it to clean it up. — Dunc|☺ 15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, try not to get upset. Take it slowly, one point at a time. You seem to be well-educated so you really ought to know how to write. You must apply yourself properly - think before spewing text onto the Internet (friendly advice). — Dunc|☺ 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
So why do you have a heading title "An alternative POV on Damadian"? — Dunc|☺ 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, you can't do that. You need to familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV, everythingmust be neutral. — Dunc|☺ 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK. The first stage must be to get events described in chronological order. Then opinions come second.
Also, please do not make edits like this where you significantly alter your previous statements. It makes it hard for people to follow conversation threads because it is difficult to figure out what replied to what without going through all the difs. JoshuaZ 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Baldness treatments. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
It's a conflict of interest linking to your own website when you're a hair loss treatment doctor. If you want to support the statement that a particular treatment works, please cite a medical journal or research paper directly. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Er. I understand the prohibition aganst "advertising". But some of the stuff on this page is right out of my work with, no credit given. I would like to be able to cite it. Also, I link to a published paper, the full text of which is on my website.
Peter H Proctor, PhD, MD
Wikipedia has a major problem with Google bombing and a lot of people try to add their own websites to articles to increase their online profile. But seeing as your site doesn't have any ads on them, your intentions are probably more honorable than most others. Feel free to restore your links, but Wikipedia does prefers content over links. Baldness treatments is an absolute mess right now and when I have some free time I'm going to have to weed out half of it since most of it seems to be advertising rather than references to proper peer-reviewed medical journals and papers. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What Scandinavian rules concerning scientific misconduct? You're not allowed to speculate. You're not allowed original research.
Also, far as I can tell there is a huge difference between Carr politely pointing out that his contribution may have been overlooked, and Damadian arrogantly whinging to the world how he was slighted.
The article is also primarily about Damadian, not Carr.
And why are you linking to talk pages? — Dunc|☺ 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not intending to start a flame war, but if you are going to revert, please at least read what you are reverting.
<Also, far as I can tell there is a huge difference between Carr politely pointing out that his contribution may have been overlooked, and Damadian arrogantly whinging to the world how he was slighted.>
Good for Damadian, whatever his case. It is about time that somebody complained loud and long about this situation. Actually, if you read Carr's letter, it is much stronger than Damadian's protest, if not nearly as loud. He essentially accuses the Nobel winners of citation plagarism. In a dignified way, naturally.
<The article is also primarily about Damadian, not Carr.>
You can't talk about Damadian without talking about the Nobel. You can't talk about the Nobel without talking about Herman Carr. Otherwise, the flavor of this complete screw-up gets lost.
<And why are you linking to talk pages?>
Didn't realize this was a no-no. Mainly, because of the heated argument about the Nobel there. Pproctor 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
This is for dealing with scientific fraud. What on earth has that got to do with Damadian? — Dunc|☺ 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Evidently, I must spell this out. The point I made in the stuff you reverted was that the way the Nobel prize works, the Noble committee regularly commits scientific misconduct by the local Scandinavian rules. The above is a link to a paper in the Journal Lancet summarizing those rules. The Damadian and Carr business is just one more example. Remember, the issue is whether Damadian and Carr were justified in "whining". Pproctor 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who says that the Nobel Prize Committee regularly commits scientific misconduct? Have you a third party reliable source? — Dunc|☺ 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Read the Swedish and Danish definitions of Scientific misconduct and figure it out for yourself.
Danish Definition: "Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
Swedish Definition: "Intention{al} distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
Strictly-speaking, the Nobel foundation regularly gives "a false credit or emphasis to a scientist". And everytime, this gives rise to objections See Nobel Prize controversies for a list, with cites. I'm on it, BTW. Since the Swedish definition is based upon the Danish one, I assume it also incorporates this. It is just inherent in the mismatch between reality and how the prize is awarded.
You haven't answered the question. The connection between the two is your own original research. Where does a third party source say this? — Dunc|☺ 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute "Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties....."
"Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions...." Pproctor 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You still haven't answered the question. — Dunc|☺ 10:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes I did, by pointing out that you are using a straw argument and completely missinterpreting the Wikipedia rules. All this nonsense made me reread them. They are pretty much the same as the last time I read them a couple of years ago and do not support your interpretation at all. Which is why I cite them above. E.g., in case of differences, the disputed "opinions and POV's" get aired.
You get your say and I get mine. BTW, figuring it was a waste of time to argue it, several revisions ago, I dropped the issue of the Nobel foundation's putative science misconduct as secondary.
However, one more time: I presented with an appropriate cite the local Scandiavian definitions for Scientific misconduct and pointed out that, technically, the Nobel foundation breaks them. E.g., the very commentator who accuses Damadian of "whining" notes that many others have been treated similarly. I.e., a "false emphasis or credit", etc. has been given to someone else. I am sorry that you seem unable to comprehend this. Pproctor 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to butt in, but Dunc is right about this, at least in one central aspect. If you want to include information about how the Nobel Committee "commits scientific misconduct", you must supply a "third party" source.
You cannot simply point to X and Y and assert that it adds up to Z. You need to quote a source which draws this conclusion.
Try finding something like this:
Zeral Phrawdz accused the Nobel Committee of violating accepted scientific standards in his June 2003 editorial in Science (or Wall Street Journal op-ed piece). He wrote, "They awarded the X Prize to Mr. Y, despite obvious fabrication of data on his part."
You see, a claim must be stated in the proper form. Not as an assertion of fact by Wikipedia itself; rather, the Wikipedia reports that A said B about C. Okay? --Uncle Ed 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Baldness treatment. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Abu Badali 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't understand the objections. The page I link too is not commercial and just contains a bunch of links to scientific papers, patents, etc. It is pretty benign compared to what else is on the baldness treatments page. Also, with millions of out-going links from Wikipedia diluting page rank to nothing, a link to a particular website does no good with Google rank. So what is the problem? Pproctor 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you in any way related to that site? If so, you should avoid posting links to it. Also, collections of links are rarely a good external resource. It's preferable to link to the real object instead. --Abu Badali 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we interpret the rules differently. You shouldn't link to commercial pages. But where does it say you cannot link to non-commercial ones, review articles, etc.? Similarly, links to pages summarizing links are a lot tidier than listing each link individually. Pproctor 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
No. You will abide by the rules established by the community. Self-promotion is not allowed. You will not add commercial links to your own sites. If you think a link ought to be added to your site you should add it to the talk page and try to get someone else to concur with you. — Dunc|☺ 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wrong. see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is true that commercial promotion (which that page is not) and undue self-promotion is frowned upon. But, otherwise, reliable sources are OK, even if on ones own website. E.g., among other things, the page on my website links to an invited book chapter I did for a CRC handbook. The page also summarizes a bunch of patents ( you can't get more "peer-reviewed" than that) plus links to peer-reviewed scientific articles, book chapters, etc..
Ironically, a lot of the stuff on the wiki page refers to stuff that I have patents on or originally published upon. Just trying to give the cites, which are not given in the body of the text. BTW, why don't you-all object to that?.
However, if I did so in the body (even if it is MY patents and MY work), this would draw heat as self-promotion. Similarly, I could have listed each of my patents and papers separately at the end. Quite justifiable in light of how much of the test of the article comes from them. Better to just give a link to them, without direct reference to who did what.
Given your arrogance and contempt for policy, I kinda expected that response, but this is not negotiable. You will not promote yourself on Wikipedia. — Dunc|☺ 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger: "The only way Wikipedia can achieve these things is to jettison its anti-elitism and to moderate its openness to trolls and fools;..."
I'll refrain from getting into another useless fight here concerning our (er) distinct opinions about "Policy", which I can (and have) quote to you all day long, give the history of, etc. Except, to again note that I was mainly trying to give some cites which are unfortunately missing from the baldness treatments entry. Again, the page is not "commercial" and again, I was trying to avoid "promoting" myself. If original sources were forbidden from providing missing cites (which they are not), Wiki would eventually face some copyright problems. Pproctor 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The page I link too is noncommercial and so are the links, which are to patent abstracts, published papers, etc. This is OK.
BTW, I'm tired of this fight, which basically is a waste of time. Do you really think there is any commercial gain from being linked to Wikipedia? None, zilch. Clue, the site gets plenty of traffic anyway and Wikipedia is worthless for search engine positioning-- with several million outward links on Wikipedia, any Page rank is diluted to absolute zero.
To remove any commercial taint, (which is absolutely useless anyway) I'll just make a new page without a link to the homepage. Alternately, I'll just link each patent (e.g.) directly to the abstracts at the US patent office, as well as the papers to pubmed.gov abstracts. But this is more cumbersome. Pproctor 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dunc, searching out and deleating any of my posts you can find is flat-out cyberstalking, by any definition. Apparently I am not the only one who has gotten "the treatment" from your rule violations. You seem to be collecting numerous complaints. Please stop this behavior. Pproctor 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
In an unrelated matter, I also found Dunc's behavior assumed bad faith and lacked civility. Specifically, this concerned the disambiguation page Them. Dunc spotted an earlier edit I had made which had removed some content he had added, and immediately reverted it as vandalism [15]. I decided to revert Dunc, but explained myself on his talk page [16], and complained about the accusation of vandalism. His response was to ignore my complaint, revert me again, and repeat his accusation of vandalism [17]. After this, I decided to check Dunc out, discovered he was a sysop, and that there were other examples of similar conflicts in his talk archives. I began to wonder if Dunc was trying to lure me into a 3RR violation, so I decided that I would stay away from him. Before walking away from this conflict, I documented my position on the discussion page Talk:Them, and added a final comment on his talk page [18]. Dunc finally paid attention to at least one of my points and made a minor correction to his reversions [19]. He then immediately archived his talk page, which I found curious. I found his behavior and attitude to be unacceptable in a sysop, and his 3rd "vandalism" accusation in his edit summary here to be inexcusably rude, since he was now aware that I was editing in good faith. I was also surprised that he didn't seem to care that his edits weren't really conforming to WP:N and Mos:DP. Overall, I found my interaction with Dunc dispiriting, and my concerns increased about the future of Wikipedia with admins behaving like this, which drives good editors away. -- Slowmover 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]
Comments by A Y Arktos
Like Slowmover, I also have had a less than civil interaction with User:Duncharris on an unrelated matter whereby he accused me of vandalism in an edit summary. Had not discussed the matter first on the article's talk page. I had discussed it there and had requested citations for the article more than one month ago. Duncharris seems unaware of, or unwilling to accept the WP:Cite policy, commenting that "this place can get verification-happy". In my case he breached civilty as far as I am concerned. I was interested to see this mediation on his talk page immediately above my posting to him asking for an explanation. I thus note I am not the only victim of his incivility. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Incivility continued at Talk:Kangaroo court where he accused me of trolling, being lazy and stupid! He also used the rollback button inappropriately, still failing to meet WP:Cite - antoher editor commented on this behaviour also.[20]. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]
Comments by William Avery
Further evidence of Dunc's tendency to escalate the emotional temperature will be found on his talk page at the Commons. Seeing that he replied to the civil request "please try to find those permissions (I'm sure, you got them)" with "I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am lying" fills me with foreboding about trying to pursue similar issues with other images he has uploaded there. --William Avery 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]
[edit]
Comments by Ground Zero
I, too, am appalled by the persistently aggressive and uncivil behaviour by an admin. When I copyedited Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen, an article full of deadlinks, I fixed numerous deadlinks, adjusted the text, and removed several deadlinks. Duncharris restored the deleted links with the edit summary "reinstate vandalised links". When I pointed out that I had made several unquestionably useful improvements to the article and asked for an apology, he continued to insist that removing deadlinks "might be interpreted as vandalism". He still has not, as far as I know, created articles for any of the deadlinks that he restored. See his talk page and mine. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Today he accused me of vandalism again. See User_talk:Ground_Zero#Adrian_Knatchbull-Hugessen. Sadly, it does not appear that he is paying this mediation effort any heed. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]
[edit]
Comments by Jim Butler
I'm not terribly heartened by Dunc's removal without discussion today of Template:POV-title that I placed on category:pseudoscience. From Category_talk:Pseudoscience, it's obvious that disagreement exists over how to handle this cat. I thought the whole point of dispute templates was to flag the articles and attract discussion so as to help build consensus. Removing the tag without discussion is not only poor Wikiquette, but contrary to the bedrock principle of consensus itself. Unfortunately it doesn't appear Dunc has taken this MedCab request to heart. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Using my own judgment, you may have used the wrong tag. Many of the included articles are obviously pseudoscience, and your tag may give the impression that the undisputed pseudoscience articles are true. Maybe use the
This category is in need of attention.
See talk page for a characterisation of the experienced problems. When there is consensus that the problems mentioned on the talk page have been resolved, this notice can be removed.
tag? --physicq210 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Good call, that was used before and does fit better. Thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Again Dunc does it on acupuncture[21]. Implicit agreement or not, reverts need to be discussed unless they're simple vandalism. Admins should uphold WP:DR, not flout it. Jim Butler(talk) 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]
Comments by pproctor
I also second Dunc's bad behavior. Everybody has bad days, but this seems far too much and with too many people. In fact, as a physician, I wonder whether there isn't some psychiatric issue. Normal tussles are normal. But this guy is completely over the top.
We went round and round on Raymond Damadian. He put me thru all of the above-- reversions without explaination, lots of abuses, insults, misstatements of "the rules", etc. I put on a "disputed section" tag and he removed it. I would try to put in something to bring the POV to neutral and he would just revert it. No discussion, nothing.
In fact, I can't believe this guy is an administrator-- something which should be reviewed, ASAP. If Wikipedia wants good editors, it cannot treat them like this. And his continual flouting of "the rules" is not conducive to having them followed.
Even worse, I made the horrible mistake of letting my true ID be known. Next thing I know, he is seeking out my other posts on Wikipedia and giving them "the treatment". Totally nuts-- like when you set off some psychotic. I don't need this trouble. Wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger has long noted the difficulty of keeping good editors in the presence of such "fools and trolls". Pproctor 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Your persistant desire to cite yourself is worrying, as it constitutes self-promotion. Self-promotion is heavily frowned upon because it is a tactic used by all sorts of overly self-important net kooks.
So here is the rule: If you want to make a change that in any way might be interpreted as self-promotion, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If your edit is valid, someone else will do it for you. — Dunc|☺ 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pot-kettle. In view of your own uncountable rule violations and previous censoring (detailed above), you have a lot of nerve accusing anyone else of a rule violation. Worse, you don't seem to have learned a thing from the experience of being censored. Maybe a concerted campaign involving the numerous people you have messed over and your myriad rule violations will finally force a solution. Were you not a sysop, you would have been tossed long ago. Wikipedia is tolerant, but not that tolerant.
"Expert editors: "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. 'If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.' They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia." Pproctor 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The guidelines you need are at Wikipedia:vanity guidelines. They are of course in addition to the prohibition on you inserting your own original research and violating WP:NPOV because of your grudge against the Nobel Committee.
Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author. Vanity information can sometimes present itself in the form of an entire Wikipedia article (a vanity article), or sometimes it can present itself more subtly in the form of various types of vanity information. Once any such article or individual edit within an article has clearly been identified as such, it is normally either reverted out of an article, or if an entire article, the article is then usually submitted for deletion.
The terms: vanity article and/or vanity information are amorphous constructs and it is therefore difficult to develop a concise list of criteria for the easy black-or-white diagnosis for these types of concerns. In most cases a vanity intent of the writer can be fairly easily deduced from the general tone or content of the article or information.
Note in particular the last sentence of the second paragraph. It is that which is concerning me most of all.
Make the changes to the artice on the talk page first (and if someone else does it for you, I'll let you win). — Dunc|☺ 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Uh, as I noted above, a very specific and unequivocal rule allows experts to reference their own publications, subject to treating them like any other cite. This is a specific exemption to the vanity guidelines. Otherwise, you would not see any of us here. In case you missed it, it goes: 'If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.' Now stop this nonsense. Pproctor 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
FYI: I'm looking into this dispute right now and seeing if I can offer an impartial 3rd party view so the both of you can cool your heads down for a short while at least. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
To PP, thankyou for pointing out the contradiction between Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:Autobiography v. WP:NOR. I have amended the content of the WP:OR page to express how self-promotion is generally viewed by Wikipedians. It is indeed unfortunate that certain editors cannot be trusted to write about their own fields without self-aggrandizement. — Dunc|☺ 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wow, policy on the run Dunc. Be very, very careful where you tread. A whole lot of eyeballs on #wikipedia just lit up on that change to WP:NOR. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
After I revealed who I am, Dunc went thru everything I had posted that he could find and then erased/reverted it under the cover of "vanity" because I had cited my own published work. Even had the "vanity" issue been real, he did this without going thru the proper procedure. Sure looked like stalking from my POV. Considering the number of sites involved, a pretty big case of vandalism.
However, under NPOV it is perfectly legal for experts to cite their own work on Wikipedia. This is not a priviledge, it just gives us the same status as everyone else. Otherwise experts become second-class citizens. As soon I imformed him of this rule, he immediately went over and proposed an ex-post-facto rule change. Pproctor 22:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mainly, it keeps the address short--- you can see how long it is below. Likewise, I'd have to go to http://www.uspto.gov and retreive the exact address. No time at the moment. The link is to the patent abstract.
Dunc, I think it's pretty fair to link to the summary. The material on the actual patent application itself [1] is pretty hard to comprehend and I agree it does need to be summarised in a manner that is comprehendable by a causal Wikipedia researcher, but does it really need to be on a separate page from the article? I'm calling in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to see if they can give this article the proper review it deserves -- Netsnipe (Talk) 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Dunc can be an absolute pain at times, believe me - anything I post on his talk page gets no reply, and is marked as 'vandalism'. The only way to sort this out is by either a straw poll against him, or intervention from another administrator. Citing your journal publications is fine as far as I'm aware, but my advice is to not make any comments regarding him at all - make a vote on the talk poage in question, and you'll have my strong support on the issue at hand, I promise you. HawkerTyphoon 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I thought a scientific journal was always a reliable source? and if you want to mention NPOV, check some of Dunc's edits in itself:P But you are right. However, I am almsot certain that the journals in question meet WP:V, WP:RS doesnt count - as they are journals and therefore reliable - although WP:NPOV is a sticking point. WP:VAIN is a problem, but then again, if it's in a journal, eh? and It's not WP:NOR if it's in a journal! HawkerTyphoon 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The issue is not the reliability of the journals. If Science, Nature, etc. are not reliable, then what is?
This issue is whether experts must check with the "Peoples Vanity Commissar" before citing their own papers in such journals. This is a very subjective judgement and thus liable to abuse. Somehow, Duncs recent behavior gives me no confidence.
BTW, all this nonsense reminds me of marxist-style ideological purity struggles. Wikipedia was supposed to be free and open and the guidelines just that, guidelines. The rules are not the goal here-- they are just tools to a higher end. Wiki is already experiencing the usual progression that happens as the "true believers" eventually take over.
Further, I don't know of any experts who will subject themselves to such review. This is a labor of love. Instead, we could be out making the big bucks or fishing.
True, the proposed policy change really doesn't mean much except to those few experts who actually tell everyone who they are. Ya gotta be flat stupid (as I was) to assume this is like some learned debate society with gentleman's rules. In retrospect, I should have continued just posting as an IP number (which I did for years), continued to duck subjective issues, and avoided this mess. But it sends a very bad message to make the experts check in with Mommy before posting. There is just no substitute for us on technical issues. Pproctor 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have placed a poll at Wikipedia talk:No original research under 15)"Expert editors" concerning Dunc's attempt to change the guidelines to make experts check in with the "Vanity Commissar" before citing their published works. I appreciate all support. Pproctor 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.
If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.
If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.
BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm abstainign pending more information. Some of your added comments look like they may meet WP:PROF. However, a few things that might be useful: first, you mention "a recent definitive history of organic electronics" could you point out what document you are refering to? Second of all, I'm not going to have university access for a week or two to do the research myself, so it might help if you gave some data supporting the claim that "John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs." A rough number of how many times he has been cited in these areas might be useful. Thanks. JoshuaZ 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
"An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).
"Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"
Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.
Pubmed cites 101 references related to Dr Mcginness' paper "Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin", cite below.
Also there isn't any need to spam your above message everywhere even to articles you have had nothing to do with. Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have been chased all over the place, apparently by people who object to my defending creationist Raymond Damadian. I am tired of it. Maybe if I embarass the people involved, they will stop. Unfortunately, some of the true beleivers will harass their own allies for even the slightest deviation from the party line. Sorry if I put this face on you. Pproctor 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have modified my comment on the AfD accordingly. JoshuaZ 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Get off the cross. Do not leave such rambling slop on my talk page. And do not even think of telling me what is and is not allowed here -- I do not suffer fools, least of all arrogant fools.
Next, the Damadian article has nothing to do with the issue of McGinness, but rather the fact that the man has few hits on the internet and that I sense self-aggrandisement do. Is the internet the be all and end all? No. But, if his papers were ref'd by so many people, there should be more than a few hits.
One of my many personality faults is that I do not suffer fools gladly either. Sometimes this comes across as arrogance. for which I apologize. And "Sensing" something is specifically excluded as evidence here on Wikipedia.
For your future information. Unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996), most cross-cites do not get picked up. So the place to look is "related articles" on pubmed.gov or on citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.
A contrary example is the journal Stroke, where they have recently posted full text articles back to the 1970's. With such articles, the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.
In any case, I am not changing my vote. Word of advice, long rambling screeds indicative of a persecution complex and which are presented in an adversarial tone are unlikey to achieve your ends. •Jim62sch• 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I did not expect you to change your vote, but merely wished to register a protest. I strongly suspect you are a sock puppet anyway. Again, what are the chances that out of 1.3K articles here on Wikipedia, the McGinness page should have several from the talk Damadian spat. It is not paranoid to point out the obvious. 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At this end, your recently added Image:Darwinscat.jpg appears corrupt. About 95% of the image is fine and then it trails off into a classic JPEG "pixelization" and gray banding. I tried three different image viewers. Just thought you would want to know. --Charles Gaudette 23:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I created this section in response to one of your remarks, so I hope you will comment in detail here [2]Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
When users without an account (or not logged in and appearing as IP addresses) edit Wikipedia it is important to be particularly vigilant about their edits as these may often be promotional material. Guidelines at WP:EL says about external links normally to be avoided: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming."
I now see from the discussion above that there has been much debate on this and similar issues, so I will not comment further than giving my reasons for the reversion and referring you to the above discussion, which I hope will be resolved soon. --apers0n 06:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
FYI-- I just posted this over on the Flamers site--
"From the subject of this discussion. "Arrogant"-- occasionally. But mostly about the people I have had the honor to work with. As for a "Fool" and "Mindless". Perhaps, like the scarecrow in "The Wizard of OZ", I substitute the odd diploma or two for brains.<grin> I hereafter vow not to post anything on controversial pages. Too many true beleivers, even if I agree with their "true belief".
A technical point. Donno your background. But, for your future information in judging bios of scientists-- Using citations on the net as a count is subject to gross artefacts.
E.g., unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996), most cross-cites do not get picked up. So the place to look is the reasonable proxy "related articles" on http://pubmed.gov or on citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device. But, only a handful show up on a net search.
An illustrative counter example is the journal Stroke, where, unlike Science, they have recently posted full text articles back to the 1970's. With such articles, the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.
Huh? You posted the above on my talk page, and I'm a little lost as to why... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Proctor, this had not a damned thing to do with you. There was a misunderstanding between Justin and myself (one for which my culpability was likely greater), and we are working towards a resolution. In any case, I'm archiving your message on my talk page as it is a propos de rien.•Jim62sch• 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, you called him a "fool" too. Recommend decaf all around.Pproctor 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On bios of scientists, some editors count number of citations toward assessing "Notability". Using citations on (say} Google scholar as a count is subject to gross artefacts.
E.g., unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996), most cross-cites do not get picked up. A better count is derived by using "related articles" on http://pubmed.gov as a proxy or using citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to a 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device. But, only a handful show up on a "Google Scholar" search.
An illustrative counter-example is the journal Stroke, where, unlike Science, full text articles back to the 1970's have been posted. With such articles, the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry, I thought my edit summary had been clear. I think linking to the recent Am J Med study (which is interesting) overloads the article, especially because the information is pertinent not just for MI but also for TIA/iCVA, other coronary syndromes etc.
Where do you work? Welcome to Wikipedia anyway; hope you'll enjoy yourself! JFW | T@lk 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Howdy there in Houston. Why do you think registering was a mistake? Whan can we do to rectify matters? JFW | T@lk 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Pproctor, hi.
Having grown up in Texas, I'm pretty well familiar with the use of second person plural in Southern English. The reason I object to it is that "y'all" doesn't mean "one", it means some group of people including the person being addressed. You seem to be imputing motives and beliefs to me that I really don't share, and that's what I was objecting to. I do worry that the conversation we're having is getting a bit too confrontational to be productive. What do you think we can do to make it less so? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Have you not realized yet that I'm on your side? I'm trying to get the policies and guidelines in a state where harassment of editors is not condoned in any way. I'm an (aspiring) academic, and I could be in a position someday that I'm working on articles on topics I've published in. I don't want to be harassed in that case; I'm with you. Why is this discussion so much like pulling teeth? All I'm trying to do is untangle the threads, but it's like you're trying to keep them tangled, or that you're just mad at me, or something. Am I just dumb? Can you meet me halfway, somehow? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Your comments here are hostile and non-productive. Please cool down and think things over; surely you realize such overt attacks are not in anyone's best interest, nor helpful to the Wiki. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pproctor, I haven't followed the NOR expert thing closely, so I don't know the ins and outs, but please tone your comments down on the talk page. Slrubenstein and Dunc Harris are not the same person, and anyone familiar with their edits knows that. As for the change you want, [3] I don't see what the difference is that's so significant it has to be fought over; which part of the new wording do you object to exactly and why? The safest thing is for you not to cite your own work if there has been an objection, but to let others cite it. I hope you'll consider apologizing for the sockpuppet thing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your note. The thing I'm puzzled about is that I don't see a substantive difference between the old and new versions; just some tidying of language. Can you say exactly what difference you think the new version could make, and which words suggest that difference? Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I hope Pproctor will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell from his responses so far, the objection is that the more recent version of WP:NOR links to the vanity guidelines, while the old one didn't. Pproctor asserts that the vanity guidelines are too vague and subjective to be linked from official policy. I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is correct. Moreover, I can point to a concrete example of what can happen, should this seemngly-insignificant change stand. Pproctor 13:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you need to repeat that bit again; what I'm really interested in is knowing how to fix the vanity guidelines. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You see, the trouble is that, even if we remove the link, and grant whatever you want to assert about Slrubenstein, Duncharris, etc.... the fact remains that WP:VAIN is sitting there, tagged as an official guideline, just like it was before, when it wasn't linked from WP:NOR and you were the object of harassment. So, you're advocating returning everything to the state in which the problem occurred, without fixing anything. Let's fix something instead. Here, check out this diff, of an edit made by User:Harald88 to WP:VAIN a few days ago. Does that do something towards addressing your concerns about the abuse-prone nature of the vanity guidelines? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pproctor, hi. I want to let you know that I am open to the idea that the vanity guidelines may be broken and in need of radical repair. I'm willing to entertain such possibilities as: renaming the guidelines, to remove the prejudicial word "vanity", rescoping the guidelines as more general conflict of interest guidelines, merging with the emergent WP:COI guideline proposal, deprecating the whole damn page from a guideline to an essay if it's determined to be necessary,... etc. These are all options.
I do feel it's silly to have some kind of red-headed stepchild guideline, that we act like we're ashamed of and don't link to from other policies and guidelines, all the while maintaining it with a guideline tag in it's broken state. That seems pathological to me. Do you see where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Can I randomly interrupt the next "operation" you perform?edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
If not, stop placing your comments in the middle of everyones else's comments. This isn't rocket science. •Jim62sch• 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Uh, there are several differnt threads. I am not splitting them. Pproctor 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe Jim62sch is referring to interspersing replies, paragraph by paragraph, within someone else's multi-paragraph post. It separates text from the signature that comes at the end of the post, and makes it difficult to attribute who said what. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
From your comment at WP:VP/P, I realized that you're under the impression that someone is changing a rule, by editing a policy page. This is in fact not the case. "The rules" here are what they are, and they amount to nothing more than (a) common sense, (b) agreeing with the project's goal, (c) understanding the medium, and (d) treating others well. Just that - a, b, c, d. Regarding self-citation, the only rule consistent with common sense is that of course you can cite yourself, as long as you do it properly, and adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That's just (a) and (b). No edit anyone makes to any policy page is going to change that, and those of us who are working on resolving the issue, like SlimVirgin and myself, have never had any doubt about that.
The relevant question to ask about a policy page is this: is a good description of common sense? I've just made an edit to the vanity guidelines that I hope makes them a better description of our unchanging common-sense policy. Perhaps you'll let me know if you think it's a good edit. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
On the Pump, you said that User:Duncharris's change constituted a fundamental modification to the policy. (which, if true, would indeed require major consensus) However, stating that you must keep the Vanity guidelines in mind while writing is not a fundamental change, and indeed it should be a basic assumption. Comparing the current version GTBacchus mentioned above with the original addition by Duncharris (diff 1) and the version prior to that (diff 2) I would say that it is both "friendlier to experts" and clearer. Can we call this agreeably resolved and unprotect the policy page so that normal editing process may resume? --tjstrf 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I will agree to this. But with the reservation that the violation of the vanity guideline be must "clear" and that "frivolous" accusations be censured. Pproctor 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That edits should be "clear" vanity before someone goes off and starts making accusations of vanity is a clear corollary of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, so I would say that's definitely covered by policy. "Frivolous" accusations will be wrong, and ignored I would hope; I'm not sure what else is necessary. If there's some particular way you'd like to see some particular paragraph worded, I hope you'll deign to let us know what that is, specifically.
In the future, Pproctor, if you find yourself harassed by any editor, I hope you'll let an administrator such as myself know, so we can address the problem directly and quickly. You may be sure that it is long-standing and unchangable Wikipedia policy that valid citations are welcomed, and that harassment is not. If someone tries to rewrite policy in order to cover their ass after behaving badly; don't worry, it can't work. There are too many of us around who know better. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I agree I should have discussed before reverting, but please make it your habit to cite sources. Edits speak for themselves, whether you're an MD PhD or a dustman. Using URLs to PubMed abstracts is not really acceptable anymore as a method of citation for Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Footnotes contains details on how to cite using footnotes, and many medical articles (such as coeliac disease) contain citations using this format. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Why do you keep reverting without discussing on the talk page. In this last one, I looks as if I was changing what I had originally posted when you were also changing the same entry at the same time, apparently without reading what I had posted. See my notes on the talk page as to why this new posting meets all the requirements for WK:NPOV, etc. Not that the other one did not, BTW.
Also, what do you know about the history of conductive organic polymers? Or the history of science in general? Yes, I know that in the context of Wikipedia, this does not matter. Just asking.
Also, why pick on my posts, which, as far as I can tell, completely meet all the guidelines? If you haven't noticed, hardly any of the claims on Noble controversies have any documentation at all. Multiple clear violations of WK:NOR. If you look at the 'history" of the page, about the only documentation for the other claims was also provided by me incidentally. Being clearly singled out like this makes me worry about ulterior motives. If you are trying to make a point, you have already made it.
While there is not a "Cabal" on Wikipedia, there are clearly cliques. Maybe even multiple sockpuppets, an easy thing to do. I seem to have fallen afoul of something. Sorry if I have offend you and your gang by inadvertantly intruding on your turf, for which I heartily repent. Now please lay off and let me get back to the real work of editing this puppy. Otherwise, we are all going to keep going round and round. A waste of everyones time. Pproctor 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your additions have been thoroughly disputed on the article talk page. Until and unless you have some support, you are engaging in tenditious editing by continuing to add them. Currently, you have NO support. The onus is on you to post convincing rationale on the talk page for inclusion, not on me to repeat what has been said already.
Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Of whom? Please request a checkuser at WP:RFCU or stop making such nonsensical accusations.
My "gang" is Wikipedia. My "turf" is Wikipedia. By adding spurious content against consensus, you are indeed intruding on my turf.
If by "lay off" you mean go away so you can keep edit warring against consensus, the answer is no. Cease your disruptive behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not according to the various histories. They say my edits have been only "throughly disputed" by the same usual suspects who post over on e.g. Creationism and related sites with you, apparently because I attempted to inject a little NK:NPOV at Raymond Damadian. And this has happened over and over. As for "sockpuppets", a different IP number means nothing in the face of multiple proxy servers. So who knows, except if you meet the subject personally.
As Wikipedia:Concensus makes clear, such a concerted action by an organized group of editors is "not a concensus". It is also a forbidden practice to gang up or enlist others to promote a particular POV. It is not WK:tendentious editing to edit in the fact of such practices. So lay off Pproctor 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are a troll. You are making unfounded accusations and warning me to "lay off". I am giving you notice - any further posts of yours to this talk page will be removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)"Reply
Edit to Creation-Evolution controversy talk pageedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As I explained to you already the reason your edit was reverted was not an attempt at censorship but a response to you posting it in many locations which violated WP:SPAM and was disruptive. Furthermore, you might notice that the very people you claim were involved in this "gang" disagreed on the John McGinness deletion discussion. Furthermore, if the editors were responding to you en mass (which I doubt) they were probably doing so out of clear evidence that you were pushing a POV. To be blunt, since you came to Wiki it was quite clear that you were POV pushing, indeed they may have noticed this without being able to fully tell what the POV is. It is however clear to me that you are on Wiki to a) self-promote and b) push some sort of "I didn't get a Nobel, but I and my buddies really deserve it. The nobels are corrupt etc. etc. etc." Frankly, it is getting tiresome. I suggest that instead of posting miscelaneous rants to various talk pages you instead try to edit stuff. You have clearly made some useful edits. I suggest you may for a while at least want to focus on those and not focus on Nobel related stuff until you have a clearer idea how to edit cooperatively with other wikipedians about topics you are intimately involved in. JoshuaZ 02:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps. But it still leaves unanswered the question of why I drew all this interest from a few people on a few specific pages and what they were told before (e.g.) they went to the AFD on John McGinness. It also leaves unanswered the question of why, with all the completely unsupported assertions and gross violations of WK:NOR on Noble controversies, mine, which is documented ad nausem, drew such special attention. If you check the history, what little documentation is there, e.g., on Herman Carr, I provided.
Also note that I am pushing Weiss et al and the Bell Labs workers case for the Nobel, not McGinness'. The fact that we were temporally between them and the Nobel winners is just an illustration of how badly this thing was messed up. I have a thing about "citation amnesia" and science fraud, which I is why I defended Raymond Damadian and ruffled all those feathers, for which I am still paying the price. While there is no cabal on wikipedia, there are certainly cliques, and I seem to have run into one. Pproctor 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Some of the other entries do need better citing however there is a significant difference which is they are generally cited better and also are actually well-known. People often are more lax about the rules when they know they could actually cite something better if they bothered to. If you wanted to it might be a good thing to go through and cite those sections using secondary sources that cite things well. I also think you are missing another point which may be relevant- there aren't many very active editors on science topics in general, so you shouldn't be surprised if some of the editors who edit one article also show up somewhere else. Furthermore, if one editor notices a comment on someone else's talk page or notes something interesting looking on their friend's contribution list they may pop over to take a look at what is going on there. This could give an appearance of a cabal or a clique. That said, yes the group of editors who edit the creationism related articles is generally pretty large and only a small fraction of them seem to have given opinions on either the Nobel page or the Mcginness page so there may be a sampling issue here since you notice those who are on all three and don't notice those who are on only 1 or only on 2. I will also repeat something I've said before- if you can get your claims about the Nobel published in either a reputable journal or mentioned in some form in a lay publication they become both more notable and take away a certain amount of WP:OR. You really may have a better bet doing that then trying to push it into Wikipedia where it doesn't yet belong. JoshuaZ 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Has it occurred to you that often people are interested in the same subjects? If you look at the Astronomy pages, you will see the same names again and again. Same for Abortion related articles, Religious and mythology related,etc. Accusing established editors and indeed Administrators of sockpuppetry is completely unacceptable, as is your habit of telling everyone with whom you disagree to "lay off" or "cut it out". Who the hell are you to order Guettarda or myself what to do? I've had about enough of your attitude.
Consider this a formal warning to cease harassing editors with whom you are involved in a content dispute. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is not "harassment" to point out that:
1) As reflected in the "history" pages, none of you were interested in any of my subjects until I crossed somebody (apparently Duncharris) by attempting to offer a neutral POV on creationist Raymond Damadian and then made the terrible mistake of revealing my true identity. BTW, I posted here anonymously for years before making the fatal mistake of signing up.
2) One reason that I still seriously consider the possibility of sockpuppetry is that Duncharris has not been above "shenangans" and in fact, has been formally censored for it. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Didn't slow him down at all. So why should he (you?) not stoop to sockpuppets. With a little care and cultivation, it is even possible to get such elected to admin status. Another reason I suspect "sock puppetry" is that I would expect "real people" not to go along this this kind of behavior. But then, I'm always getting surprised.
3) Literally millions of people read and post to Wikipedia. Why should I suddenly draw concerted fire from a hand-full of editors who just happen to commonly post to (roughly) .001% of the sites here? The mind beggars-- a real smoking gun. I do forensic work--- any jury would convict in about two seconds.
4) The only reasonable explaination ( besides sockpuppets, naturally ) is a group of editors operating in concert to impose a particular POV. I again note that the rules forbid this, thus recognizing it. It is also a regular complaint about Wikipedia in other venues.
Likewise, Wikipedia:Concensus recognizes this process and specifically states that the result "is not a concensus". This guideline means nothing, unless it is also OK to present evidence for such a collaborative effort and to confront the Perps. So this is no offense.
5) I am the offended party here. It is not harassment to privately inform that I know the game, express regret for whatever offense I have inadvertently committed, and ask nicely to "lay off" so I can continue to donate my rather expensive time. And there is always the "delete" key. If you like, I will put it all on the talk pages for the world to read. This kind of behavior only thrives in the dark. As do lame explainations for it.
As for a "formal warning". Empty threat-- look how much attention Duncharris paid to getting formally censured and how many rules and guidelines you-all have broken. Besides, this isn't fun anymore. I donate time here that I normally charge $350 an hour for, only to waste energy on spats like this. As happens with most experts who don't lie very low, I'm getting tired of the constant harassment. BTW, while we are escalating, it is against Federal law to harass somebody in an on-line venue without revealing your true ID. Pproctor 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you familiar with the Pareto principle? Are you familiar with the tendency of humans to gravitate into small groups, because that's really the only way we can establish a social network? Why do I run so often into the same 50 or so Wikipedians? Your "forensics" argument doesn't wash, I'm afraid. I've seen you talk about "assuming editors are randomly distributed over pages", which is of course a terrible assumption, guaranteed to lead immediately to nonsense.
More importantly, accusations of sock puppetry are a red herring and a waste of your time and will get you nowhere and will exacerbate rather than resolve this situation. If you seriously suspect sockpuppetry, file an RFCU; otherwise, you're blowing steam. Is your expensive time best spent blowing steam, or being productive? There are ways to effectively resolve disputes on the Wiki. This thread so far ain't one. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have already directed Pproctor to RFCU, when he accused me of sockpuppetry on my page. At that time I informed him he either had reason, in which case request a check, or had no reason, in which case cease his harassment. I note he has done neither, which lends considerable credence to GTBacchus' red herring hypothesis. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's an intentional red herring. I just think Pproctor has yet to move past his defensiveness and get into a really productive mode. Obviously, he's emotionally invested in the situation. Which article is the content dispute on, anyway? Maybe it would help to cut to the chase. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
How can you tell who is a sock puppet or not? IP numbers mean nothing. True, people with like interests do tend to congregate. And if they act in concert, the "observable" is identical to a sockpuppet.
This still does not explain the sudden migration to my pages of a group of editors (even admins) who, according to various history pages, previously had no interest in my various and diverse subjects at all. P value a whole lot less than .05. You would think they would have been a little more subtle. Hand in the cookie jar, smoking gun, "Well, she sure looked 18", etc..
Or perhaps there was some heavenly voice that told everybody to go there all at once. Again, absent such divine intervention, a Wikipedia:concensus arrived at by such means is 'not a concensus".
Moreover, such practices are a violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines. No wonder you-all hang around the policy pages-- get in trouble and you can just change the policy. Just saw Duncharris do exactly this. More grist for my Wired article<G>. Pproctor 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pproctor, Pproctor, Pproctor. You ignored the pertinent and forward looking question you need to focus on. You're very stubbornly focused on an utterly unproductive train of thought. I've explained to you in clear detail that nobody editing a policy page "changes policy", and that those of us who know anything about Wikipedia all know that. Were your fingers in your ears for that part? Now, here's a little more detail on why the whole sockpuppet train of thought, even if we grant that you're entirely correct, is USELESS to you. It will gain you nothing, even if you're right and proved right. Are you listening? Here it comes:
If you know how to deal with disputes at Wikipedia - and I'm thinking of some very specific easy-to-apply techniques here, that you've been ignoring - then it wouldn't matter in the slightest if you were up against a clique, or a sock puppeteer, or a cabal, or whatever. Do you have any interest in getting anything productive done, or only in licking your wounds and showing them off? Step up, buddy; this is where you get to be either a man, or a boy. Which is it? Now again - where is the content dispute that we can address? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pprotector, from my observation any content dispute which gets dragged into the Village Pump and multiple policy pages will attract this same amount of notice, from many of these same people. It's not some giant conspiracy, it's simply that they have those pages on their watchlists. If they see your dispute and it looks interesting they'll show up.
Taking a dispute to the Wikipedia space is effectively interpeted as an automatic request for input from other users and admins. Especially if the disputants begin editing the policy pages. --tjstrf 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I didn't drag this to the policy pages, Ducharris did, after vandalizing my work all over the place under the excuse of "vanity" after I crossed him over on Raymond Damadian. BTW, last time I saw this kind of behavior, it was when somebody set off a psycho-- if you had any expereince with such, you would understand why the words "sock puppet" popped up. Had any sense, I would have departed then and there, but the existance of the guidelines made me believe that this kind of thing is not "policy", Larry Sanger's pronouncements notwithstanding.
When I pointed out to him that under the rules, what I did was perfectly OK, he proceeded to try to change the rules. But this still does not explain why all these usual suspects also kick(ed) me around outside the policy pages and before Dunch made his little foray at rule changing. Pproctor 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter who did it, it just matters that someone did. The batsignal was put out, as it were. You were the one who posted to the pump, iirc, requesting help with Dun's changes to the policy. (In which I supported you, I might add, so don't go calling me a sock.) Basically, the swarm of input you're receiving isn't sockpuppetry or a conspiracy, it's just a bunch of bored wikiholics (like myself) taking a look at what they believe to be an interesting dispute. --tjstrf 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Er, I came to the pump weeks after all this started. Sorry if I gave the impression that the folks there were a problem. Dunch's little foray at rule changing was on [[WP:NOR}] and the editors that ganged up seem to all congregate around the creationist/evolutionist pages. Again, every time a new name shows up, I check over there and sure enough. Enough to make a fella paranoid. Remember, this all started when I had the temerity to defend arch creationist Raymond Damadian and then reveal my real name.
Or perhaps I am blaming Duncharris unfairly and this is about defending turf and discouraging knowledgable troublemakers like me from frequenting the policy pages. I promise to stay away from now on. Nobody seems to pay much attention to the rules and guidelines anyway. Pproctor 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's why I and my strong POV stay the hell away from the Creation-Evolution pages... stirring up hornets's nests is not one of my hobbies. --tjstrf 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Me too. Those people are Craa-zy. The great irony is that I am reasonably well-known in "Evolutionist" circles, having discovered one of the few examples of classic Darwinian evolution in humans[4]. This did not stop the folks over at Raymond Damadian from immediately accusing me of being a "Creationist" and of "Vandalism", thus starting us off on the wrong foot. The final result is this mess. Pproctor 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Pproctor, if you mean anything civil by these, please tell us what it is. This page indicates they mean something impolite. I hate to think that's what you've been saying. I understand that you're upset with this website, but that's really unnecessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
ESAD="Every Sock Air Dries" [5]. Also see Yahoo Answers on this subject [6].
ESAD is a Medical acronym and insider doctor joke. It's a comic and thus memorable version of the Hippocratic injunction "Primum non nocere" ("First, do no harm"). Typically it means "don't over-treat the patient if he will probably get better anyway", etc. Another rough equivalent is "The best is the enemy of the good".
And yes, "MF" is sometimes added and allegedly means "Me Fix" or, more consistently in the context, "Mother-nature fixes", tho some unkind people claim it is only for emphasis. BTW, A standard orthopedic consent form is called a "BBMF", or "Bone Broken, Me Fix". Orthopedic surgeon: twice as strong as an ox, half as smart.
Any other interpretations are the product of a dirty mind. Among other things, ESAD is also the "Earth Science Applications Directorate" at NASA [7], The Empire State Association of the Deaf (www.esad.org), and a proper name (Esad Ribic is a comic book artist). Pproctor 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The product of a dirty mind, or a Google search. Apparently you're actually being quite respectful; I apologize for imagining otherwise. (I did find those other results (not the medical one, but the others, but none of them make much sense as an edit summary, now do they?) Now, you have yet to answer several questions I've asked above, regarding where the content dispute is that can be addressed. Since you're clearly in a solutions-oriented frame of mind, would you care to address that now? Over which particular edit is the cabal of sock-puppets and good-old-boys riding roughshod? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am shocked, shocked!, to find out that ESAD and ESADMF have alternate Urban lower class meanings. Can you imagine such a thing? Must be my sheltered upbringing. Rest assured, I use these phrases in the most innocent sense---- "Gay" means a lot of different things too. BTW, ESAD ("Every Sock Air Dries") is reputed to be the unoffical motto of the Midget Ocean Racing Club], a group of very competitive sail-boat racers which includes the odd (very odd) physician or two. Naturally, being upper middle class professionsals, they must take this in its obvious sense of not taking things too seriously.. Pproctor 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesmentedit
One of the tasks of the WP:MEDGENP is to assess all unrated articles listed on the article rating page so that the quality of the articles within the scope of the project can be seen at a glance. This was previously updated only manually, but now the ratings are also harvested daily by a bot and the results posted here, with significant changes from the previous rating listed here. If you would like to assess an article relating to genetic disorders you can add the relevant template to the article talk page, which will add the article to the relevant category and will be monitored by the bot.
A new assessment category {{GA-Class}} (Good Article) has been added for articles that have been assessed as a Good Article.
There is also a new category Category:Acquired genetic disorders for genetic disorders that are not inherited. Please add this category to any articles you think may qualify.
If you are registered to use the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) (requires Windows 2000/XP + .NET framework v.2) there is a Wikipedia Assessments plugin that is designed to make the assessment process faster and easier (about the plugin / user guide). It has an assessments mode, for reviewing articles, and a talk page tagging mode for reviewing articles. Users with more than 500 mainspace edits can register to use the AWB
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Please review Wikipedia:Categorization before adding any more categories to articles. On myocardial infarction you added close to 20, most of which were only peripherally related and didn't actually exist! I've undone most of similar edits to other articles. Please let me know if there are any questions. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are more problems. You shouldn't put articles into categories that don't exist. That defies the whole purpose. Putting Stroke in Category:AstraZeneca suggests that one who reads about stroke immediately wants to read about Astra. I don't think so. Putting stroke in Category:Harry Demopoulos is similarly problematic.
In short: please keep categories topical. When linking to categories related to disease process, it bears remembering that not all these links are as solid as sometimes suggested. Hyperuricaemia causes gout and nephropathy, but its link to free radicals and aging is not quite so straightforward that a category link should be created just to address this phenomenon.
Again, please adhere to the guidelines and possibly have a look at some featured articles that have well-thought out category listings. JFW | T@lk 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I reverted because it was obvious that you were doing something that would need to be undone at some point, and I explained those reverts instantaneously on your talkpage. What does surprise me is that you've proceeded along exactly the same lines on Lesch-Nyhan syndrome despite my explanations. I hope this was unintentional. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I don't dispute the relevance of NXY-059, or that of uric acid to oxidative stress (I see a certain P.H. Proctor did some useful research on that a little while ago). What does bother me that the categories you intended to create were several logical steps removed from the article topic. Apart from being confusing, it would also completely overwhelm the categories in question. Someone browsing stroke topics would have to figure out why Harry Demopoulos is in there - not because he suffered a stroke but because he worked on something potentially relevant to stroke.
I think your problem lies in knowing a phenomenal amount about a difficult area of research but being too unfamiliar with Wikipedia's style conventions to really get appreciated for this. For example, on uric acid I would recommend full academic citations instead of just external links to the journal articles in question; this would satisfy WP:CITE (our citation guideline). For a recent example from my own hand see coeliac disease.
I'm happy to help out - please just drop a line. I would hate to see your Wikipedia experience wasted by squabbles. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Oleg-cruiser.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not sure which links you refer to, but the article could benefit from a "links" or "sources" section at the bottom. >Radiant< 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You need to find a way to control your temper. Experts are not exempt from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. For a start, stop using inflammatory edit summaries. (obscenity deleated) [sic] and ESAD are not likely to impress readers. And don't give me the "Every Sock Air Dries" crap. You know full well that's not what your audience will take away from that abbreviation, and the context makes it painfully obvious that it is exactly what you want them to think. Blow off steam somewhere else, okay? Don't be a dick. Rl 08:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Don't blame the victim. Actually, I thought I was being funny and defusing the situation with a little humor. I am always forgetting that some people just don't get it. And speaking of "Don't be a Dick", go read the talk page on Dulbecco's law. Totally and completely inappropriate behavior on the part of an admin while I was trying to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. When I saw what I was getting into, I even gave up the point totally.Pproctor 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying you've never been wronged, even though I don't agree with your assessment of the events in Dulbecco's law. But you are attracting trouble, and it's easy to see a recurring theme (and it's not a conspiracy). I'd love to help, but I don't know how. It might help if you can ask someone whose judgment you trust to tell you how you come across. Rl 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, there is no Wikipedia conspiracy. But there certainly are Wikipedia cliques and/or sockpuppets (hard to tell sometimes). Totally against the rules, naturally. Second, sorry if I occasionally inadvertently offend. Some people would complain if ya hung 'em with a new rope. Fact is, I generally just to back off immediately when I see difficulties.YMMVPproctor 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I thought that I would mention that it is generally a bad idea to try to use personal authority on Wikipedia. I could claim to be an authority on the subjects covered by my PhD, but nobody reading my comments has any way of verifying if Tim Vickers has a PhD or, if he does, if I am indeed that person. In light of this lack of verifiability, the Wikipedia community instead relies entirely on published and verifiable sources. This avoids the problems we might get into with cranks who believe in UFOs-based crystal therapy turning up with reams of entirely imaginary but superficially impressive qualifications. I do find this a bit annoying occasionally - I'd like to just say "Of course that's true, I published a paper showing that years ago." but I can instead link to the paper, which has the same effect. TimVickers 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know. I have been posting here for a long time. One exception is when it cuts thru all the BS and there is objective proof of both identity and authority. I can prove who I am (e.g., the Peter Proctor of this Nature paper on uric acid [8]). Thus, e.g., I certainly would not question your ability to make pronouncements in the area of Leishmania oxidative metabolism, which you make a point of.Pproctor 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You assert you are this person, but we have no way of knowing if this is true. Similarly, I assert I am an expert on thiol metabolism, but I could just be an opinionated teenager with access to Google and Pubmed. <irony>LOL sez who</irony> TimVickers 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Always possible. However, check out www.drproctor.com/hi [9] , www.doctorproctor.com/hi [10] and www.redoxsignaling.com/hi [11] for my greetings to you-all. If you like, I can put any old thing there-- you name it. Does it make sense that some teen-age imposter should own those particular websites? E.g., who but somebody in the area of free radical research would bother to own redoxsignaling.com, whose significance you hopefully recognize. Pproctor 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but I'm sure you can see the sense in the policy. As a comment on the "redoxsignaling.com" website, the lower text renders in Firefox as light green text on a white background, and is therefore completely illegible. You might want to change that! TimVickers 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Without specifying why---The lower text is not intended to be read, by humans anyway....Pproctor 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
In that case, make the links the same colour. All you see at present are blue words hovering in the midst of almost-invisible type. TimVickers 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The search engines consider type the same color (or even close) as the background as "spamming". This is to be avoided. BTW, evidently, your browser reads the color codes differently from the windows browser.Pproctor 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's been noted before (above), but you seem to be trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia by propping up the reputation of obscure researchers and obscure literature maybe because some bitterness you feel about the Nobel to Heeger, MacDiarmid, and Shirakawa. Your advocacy diminishes the contributions of these researchers.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, an ad hominenem. It is not I who reright history. I merely give the whole story by pointing to certain references. As for "obscure literature" and "obscure literature"--- this has nothing to do with priority of discovery. Anyway, many chemists would dispute that the Australian Journal of Chemistry is exactly "obscure". And we published in "Science". Ain't no journal less obscure.
While I leave this out, read the Aussies 1964 paper and compare it to Shirikawa et al's 1977 one. They are pretty much identical, except the Aussies used polypyrrole rather than polyacetylene.
BTW, contrary to your assertion, I did not provide this reference. As I told yo before and is easily verifiable, the anonymous poster uses an IP number assigned (IIRC) to the University of Woolagong, an OZ hotbed of research in conductive polymers. The thing speaks for itself.
I and others have noted that Shirkawa et al were not the first to show a high conductivity state in the polyacetylenes. e.g., I recently included a cite to a history of the field written by an important figure who says the same thing. As the title of this review notes with respect to this very issue "There is Nothing New Under the Sun", specifically referring to Shirakawa et al's work. If you have something NOR to contest this other than your personal feelings, please provide it.
I had also previously given another cite to a book chapter on the history of conductive organic polymers which reflects this. For unaccountable reasons, you have removed this reference. You may not like the cites, but they are real. I again offer you the opportunity to contest them. Otherwise, you are committing the sin of NOR and substituting your personal opinion for clearly referenced material.
In general, wikipedia encourages input from experts like me, who "know the references". True, as a biophysics graduate student, I was a member of one at least three research groups who reported high conductivity in an organic polymer well before Shirakawa et al. Published in a top journal (Science) and all.
But, our research group was no better than third in line for it. Our distinction is merely that we were likely the last to report this before Shirakawa et al. True, ya never know what else is out there. The more I look, the more I find. So I have no real dog in this fight, other than the history of discovery, wherever it leads.
Besides, I left all this decades ago for medical practice. However, I have retained an abiding interest in the history of discovery, even if what I discover and post dimishes our role. This occasionally gets me in trouble on Wikipedia. This is particularly so where I was an eye-wittness to events where the history has been (er) revised (or perhaps I was in an alternate universe), such as here and in the discovery and development of MRI.Pproctor (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Gadget128.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gadget128.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Gadget128.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If I didn't "always assume good faith", I might think you are trying to set me up for "edit warring", "tendentious editing" etc. claims by editing while I am editing my own material and then beating me to the punch in posting. This puts me in the position of losing everything I have written or revising your edit, which did not even exist when I started my edit. This has resulted in my last two (three?) changes to your edits.
This is a well-known trick for shutting up naive but pesky editors. BTW. Haven't seen it recently though. Speaking of edit warring, just how many times have you changed my edits? Seems like I post something or even try to edit and there you are. Sauce for the goose, etc. Similarly, I have continually urged discussing this on the discussion page. But you keep making reverts without discussing them first.Pproctor (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please see WP:OWN as well, if you're going to refer to "editing my own material". Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nice straw. Naturally, What I meant was spiffing up my own edits, e.g., for punctuation etc., as opposed to trouncing someone elses. But you knew that already.
BTW, Check the edit summaries and your talk page-- I complained about your editing on top of me the first time you did it and nicely requested that you not do this. Yet, you continued. From which I reasonably concluded that you might be trying to suck me into posting over you, just so I did not lose my work product. Admittedly, as I "always assume good faith", it took me a time or two to figure out the game. Nice try though.Pproctor (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just a hopefully helpful bit of information. I noticed that your first edit to Quantum realm got turned into a redirect by another editor... using {{New page}} or {{Increation}} should prevent this from happening in the future. Antony-22 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You keep insisting in adding that image, and the text, while it has been, oh so many times by oh so many editors, been removed. I have, again, removed it. It does NOT belong on that page. Re-inserting and insisting, bordering on WP:OWN, which you do constantly if I see the history of this page, and if I recall my previous encounters with you, does not get it in. There is, obviously, no consensus to have that information written in such a way. Wikipedia is NOT the place to make your point against a Nobel prize committee. Cease that, and if you want the image re-inserted, get consensus FIRST on the talkpage. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Uh, as before, you miscite "the rules". E.g., WP:OWN states pretty clearly what "ownership" is. It is quite definitely not the occasional rare edit. Anyway, you need to stop makng up stuff wholesale. Alternately, go over to WP:concensus, WP:ownership, and all the all the other policy pages you cite incorrectly and attempt to change them to correspond to your views. I doubt you will get far with this. But it is definitely worth a try. 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
![17 years ago](#c-Charles_Gaudette-2006-08-25T23:24:00.000Z-Corrupt_image:_"Darwinscat.jpg"){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect Quantum realm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Quantum realm until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)