|
Please do not add this article back to see also lists when people remove it. You have seriously overdone it. Some of those articles are so distantly related as to make the link completely pointless. A Ramachandran 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
why did you move computaionalism? 1Z 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not not want the links alphabetised. I didn't even realise that was what you were doing. Sorry. I believe that I was trying to revert some vandalism and reverted the wrong edit. I apologise. -- Catalyst2007 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page Holonomic brain theory on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Catalyst2007 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do NOT remove foreign characters from articles. If you see all "???"s, I recommend installing the right language support on your computer. Nardman1 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to your criticisms because they are criticisms, I object to them because they are incomprehensible. You need to explain why the razor might not be applicable to the SH and what relevance the existence of dreaming has to the SH.
it is a heuristic rule, and not a natural law, it is not an infallible guide as to what is ultimately the truth, but only what is usually best to believe, all other things being equal. Assuming Occam's Razor were applicable to the Simulation Hypothesis citation needed, it would tell us to reject it as being too complex, in favor of reality being what it appears to be. However, critics point out that all things are not equal, as evidenced by our dreams citation needed, and therefore this analysis does not apply. Another objection is that when all things are equal the simple answer can still be wrong.
1Z 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on. It's a link to your own blog. See WP:V, "Self-published sources". 1Z 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
________
This is a rehash of the discussion section. The purpose was to illustrate a point -- when you (Peter Jones) link to either your own blog or what purports to be your "buddies" blog to make further argumentative points it weakens the article.
So far your reaction to a "citation needed" tag has been to delete it. 1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The result is people create wikis and blogs to refute you. You're dedicated to coming a conclusion for the reader rather than allowing readers to come to their own conclusion.
You've obviously researched a lot of areas and that's a good thing, but sometimes you bring too much information to a section and ask too much of the reader. The result is too much information that is off topic. Computability of Physics is a good example.
In the first paragraph you state it doesn't really apply and things are safe and then go into a long drawn out analysis. Why? Simply if it and make it comprehensible. Lordvolton 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. 1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi LV, Please jump back to simulated reality to help me a little with peter. He is a little bit argumentative rather than constructive. I noticed that occums doesnt really apply here because "all things being equal" (I saw that logical error before noticing that anyone else had the same objection) Also I did a good re-org that he blocked. Artman772000 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000
I'm not sure what you were trying to do linking the book into multiple articles on 27 December 2007. I'm removing them per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that twice now ( [1] and [2]) you've added back the same link. There are many approaches we can use to resolve this dispute. I've tried to discuss it here with you, and have also commented on talk pages of the two articles where you've restored the link. WP:THIRD is a good way to get a neutral editor to examine the situation. Perhaps we should try it? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote [3] "I wanted to open it up for some additional discussion to make sure that others were allowed to participate before a final decision was made." You're too late. A decision has been made, you cannot undo it by this means. There is an appeals process against AFD if you insist William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Measurement causes collapse, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Measurement causes collapse.
Melchoir (
talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comment on my talk page, I've added my comments to the article regarding the deletion. Just out of interest, what made you think I might have something to say on the matter? -- Rebroad ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the Measurement causes collapse page. It is a huge improvement over what was in the CCC page.
Nhall0608 (
talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Measurement causes collapse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse. Thank you. Melchoir ( talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Melchoir ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For knowing when an admin was wrong. Keep doing what you believe is right, even when others say you are wrong. Malamockq ( talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
I've blocked you for incivility. Lets try to keep the AFD polite, shall we? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For a full transcript please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse
Lordvolton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
personal bias, see my talk page.
Decline reason:
incivility was very clear. at least three phrases used were inappropriate. — BozMo talk 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Fair enough, so when I get a list of similar phrases uttered by William Connolley is he going to get the same treatment? Or will there be a double standard?
______________
I see that BozMo and William are editing pals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_to_Sea
Anyway, here are some of William Connolley's greatest hits:
“Ed, you can't even spell my name right, let alone do the science. Go on: ***in what way is that statement controversial?”
“Good grief. He can't keep his own homepage up to date.”
“Sloooowly you are getting there.”
“yet more pap. repeat after me: I do *not* need to have the last word.”
“Ed, this is stupid.”
“Just when it looked like we might agree... Ed makes a hairy mess.”
“Ed, you've lost countless arguments on the GW pages, don't re-open them here.”
“Feel free to waste your time, but in future could you please avoid wasting mine?”
“enough tedious ambiguity”
“What are you talking about, old fruit?”
The condescension and ridicule of others is obvious. But I don’t suppose his editing buddy, Bozmo, will do much about it.
I vehemently disagree with this block. What Lordvolton said was strong, but not incivil. I have seen much worse. Users using capslock, and screaming. William, you have said worse things. At most, a friendly reminder of being civil, would have been appropriate, but not a full block. Malamockq ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The excerpt below is taken from William Connolley's talk page. Initially I wasn't quite sure what BozMo was talking about when he threatened to block me. I now realize he was referencing my accidental miss spelling of the last name "Connolley" as "Connelly".
This is the kind of rogue administration that gives Wikipedia a bad name.
Lordvolton ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if you've become rather heated following the deletion of an article on a subject in which you are interested. This is not uncommon. Your comments since have been somewhat problematic, leading I see to a brief block. I'd like to give you a small piece of advice from someone who has been around here for a while and also gets angry about content disputes. The advice is this: remove all related articles and debates from your watchlist, and make a note to come back in maybe six months. Don't touch them in the mean time. Don't go to the talk pages of admins involved in the dispute, and don't try to argue that you were right all along, because having looked at the block you received I have to say that 8 hours was at the lenient end of blocks we hand out for that kind of comment. There's no point baiting the admins, because the admins are just folks. We're all volunteers here, after all. I can tell you form long past experience that escalating the dispute will only result in your gaining a reputation as a troublemaker, and that can take a while to shake off. You've had your say on the subject of consciousness causes collapse / measurement causes collapse, people have listened to what you say, but have chosen to disagree. Life, I'm afraid, is like that: people will not always agree with you. So, document what is documentable from reliabel sources at quantum mysticism, then remove that from your watchlist and move on. You will be much less wound up if you do that. Guy ( Help!) 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Getting a bit bored with User:Lordvolton. — Travis talk 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We may have a vandal on the dream argument page, but I'm not 100% certain. Qualiam's account only has edits to the Dream Argument page but he forgot to sign in and posted a comment which revealed his or her ip address.
Once we ascertain the location of the ip address all we'll need to do is narrow it down to the other posters in the group. Your help in this effort would be greatly appreciated.
Once we've isolated the culprit we can decide whether it warrants further action. Lordvolton ( talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Qualiam is removing the simulated reality section in accordance with a majority verdict on the talk page, his/her actions are entirely appropriate, you are the problem. 1Z ( talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that user:Graymornings also agrees with the deletetion. 1Z ( talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Linking all the neural net and neuron model pages to "memristor" is a bit of a stretch for relevance, don't you think? None of those pages have anything to do with hardware models. I suggest looking up analog neural networks or something similar. And linking on biological models that aren't even used in computational NNs, such as Fitzhugh-Nagumo and Hodgkin-Huxley, is enough of a stretch that I would even call it a blatant you-should-know-better mistake. SamuelRiv ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was approached by Lordvolton about this dispute, so I'm here with my 2¢. It occurs to me that, while someone may believe Lordvolton to be a "spammer" or a "crank", that simply doesn't matter. Talking about editors is a good way to lose the real topic, which is the edits. The dispute here isn't whether Lordvolton is a good editor; the dispute is whether the links he's added are good ones. I would suggest that the best way to handle that dispute is not by arguing with each other and calling names, but rather by getting other Wikipedians to comment on the edits in question.
We've got guidelines regarding linking - why not ask people at the talk page of WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK what they think? Is there a relevant WikiProject ( WP:ELEC?), where members could be asked to weigh in? I don't know the first thing about memristors, but plenty of people around here do. Why not get them involved?
I would also point out that, the way we define vandalism here ( WP:VAND), it is logically impossible for anyone who thinks they're improving Wikipedia to be vandalizing. We restrict the word "vandalism" to very clear cases, such as insertion of random obscenities, or page blanking. If you bring up accusations of vandalism in other cases, my experience has been that the time to resolve such disputes is much longer than if we stay on-topic. I think it's pretty clear that everyone in this conversation is contributing in good faith, and even if they aren't, it is not pragmatically helpful to make claims of vandalism. The only way to the solution is to stay on-topic.
Now, Lordvolton, it is now clear that there is some dispute over the memristor links. Whether or not you agree with the way the dispute was initiated, it has to be dealt with before editing can continue. Re-inserting links that have been deleted, even if you don't like the way there were deleted, tends to draw out the dispute rather than resolving it quickly. In general (excepting blatant vandalism), making any edit twice is a sign that discussion should already be going on.
Lordvolton, have you got any evidence that there is consensus support for the links in question? Have you asked people at the talk pages of the relevant articles, and what did they say? Whatever SamuelRiv may think of you, that's not the important topic. The important topic is: is it reasonable to add certain links to articles? What does the community say about that in this case?
One last thing, Lordvolton. I would recommend very strongly against "[getting] some background information on [SamuelRiv] since you seem to protest a little too much." Are we here to write an encyclopedia, or to play Cloak & Dagger? If you allow yourself to think about why he's opposed to the links, then you're going off on the same unproductive tangent that he's on when he talks about whether you're a spammer or a crank. Drop. It. Rise above it, and use these servers for talking about the encyclopedia, not about each other. If you really like each other that much, get a room. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Charlie Z. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Willking1979 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why there you are removing these redirects whilst there is an ongoing AfD proceeding on the article?-- Vintagekits ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
A friendly note, you may have breached the WP:3RR reversion limit on that article. Please be careful, and consider reversing your most recent edits there - keep in mind that separate reversions of different material are often counted towards that limit. I won't file a report and have no particular opinion on the content, just don't want to see anyone get into trouble. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Violation discussed at: [4]
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h). The discussion raises complex issues, but none of those issues give you the right to exceed the limit of three reverts in 24 hours. You are expected to search for an agreement on the Talk page, and not continue to insert your material before consensus is found. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.
I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."
"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."
"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."
81.151.135.248 ( talk) 12:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB
-- Loremaster ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Roscelese. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Douglas Karpen. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, LV, you are definitely dealing with a political POV warrior here . . . and quite an unpleasant POV warrior at that; dotes on insulting editors that she finds oppositional. In the case of the Douglas Karpen article, however, I would suggest riding out the storm. Even if the article is deleted it will likely be temporary because if the charges are true it will eventually be quite a significant story. I noticed that going back there was an early attempt to quash the Wikipedia article on Kermit Gosnell and you see what happened there. If Karpen's anywhere near as bad as Gosnell there will eventually be a very permanent Wikipedia article concerning his activities. By the way, just doing a very incomplete Google search I noticed a (London) Daily Telegraph story on Karpen. Is that source presently used in the Wiki article? Badmintonhist ( talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You did well, kiddo. And because of that I'll tell you a couple of absolutely factual Roscelese anecdotes, giving her credit where credit is due, to give you an even clearer idea of the lady. A couple of years ago she was doing a Wiki bio of an abortion performing doctor named Susan Wicklund. To make the prose slightly less worshipful of her subject I helped her with it and we actually worked fairly well together (despite her occasional snide remarks). The moment that stands out in my mind, however, is finally convincing her NOT to use the fundraising flyer of a group that wanted to build an abortion clinic in some Great Plains state as a "reliable source" for the bio. The flyer had described the behavior of the clinic's opponents in a negative way, of course, and Roscelese had originally used it to make "statements of fact" about their dastardly deeds. To be fair, she had found the words of the flyer in a column appearing in the strongly left-leaning Nation magazine (a highly suspect source for "facts" to start with) and said she thought that they were the writer's words rather than merely the flyer's. Compare a fundraising flyer as a "reliable source" to the kinds of sources that you've seen her reject recently and you get an idea of . . . well let's just say that you get the idea.
The other revealing moment came when she and her frequent ally Binksternet were working on the article Pro-life feminism. For some reason, perhaps because it's the odd pro-life country in Western Europe, they were dealing with pro-life feminism in Ireland. I noticed something strange right off bat when I saw a statement in the article to the effect that "Irish pro-life feminists stay out of politics." The idea being that they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk; their anti-abortion sentiments being expressed more or less ethereally. I was (and am) no expert on the subject but it just didn't ring true to me, not with the legality/illegality of abortion in Ireland being a pretty hot political topic in recent years. I soon found that they based this supposed "fact" on the word of ONE academic. SHE had said so and that was good enough for them, and they would not even include this "fact" as an indirect statement in the article with something like "according to feminist historian Mary McCarthy, Irish pro-life feminists stay out of the political fray." NOPE, it had to be stated directly in Wikipedia's voice. Bad as I am with doing research on-line, I fairly quickly managed to find two newspaper columns by the only Irish pro-life feminist mentioned by name in the Wiki article which utterly contradicted what Bink and Rosy were insisting was incontrovertible fact. They finally relented and agreed that the statement should be removed, but here's the kicker: Roscelese then tells me, I kid you not, that those newspaper columns hadn't surprised her at all! Kinda like she had been expecting someone to find them all along but until that time she wanted Wikipedia to say, in no uncertain terms, that pro-life feminists in the Emerald Isle were apolitical. Ahh . . . it's cathartic. Badmintonhist ( talk) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm hoping your sudden popping up at a bunch of articles I edit is just coincidence. If it is, I suggest that you find other things to be interested in, because you wouldn't want your behavior to appear suspicious. If not, I recommend that you stop using my edit history as your source of inspiration. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
After inquiring about the intent of Roscelese’s recent article deletions on her talk page user Tparis intervened and challenged me to conduct some research to determine if there was a history of Roscelese failing to impose the same standard on LGBT articles.
First I had to ascertain the standard that Roscelese applies to pro life articles and articles of organizations that do not affirm homosexuality which can be summed up as follows, “The article listed below does not have significant coverage in reliable sources needed to illustrate required notability under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has almost no citations, or none to reliable sources, and are replete with promotional language.”
Source: Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_29#Family_Life_International_.28New_Zealand.29
Next, I had to locate a list of LGBT articles, which are found here: /info/en/?search=List_of_LGBT_rights_organizations
To establish whether a clear case of editorial bias existed I then had to review the LGBT articles to determine whether: 1) Roscelese had nominated any of them for deletion, and 2) determine if they met Roscelese’s criteria for deletion.
To my surprise many of LGBT articles fall within Roscelese’s standard for deletion. And to my great disappointment she had indeed edited some of them and failed to nominate them for deletion indicating a high potential for editorial bias.
Here is a list of the LGBT articles that meet the standard for deletion w/ commentary beneath relevant articles:
/info/en/?search=The_Lesbian_%26_Gay_Foundation
/info/en/?search=OutFront_Minnesota
/info/en/?search=Gender/Sexuality_Rights_Association_Taiwan
/info/en/?search=Israel_Gay_Youth
/info/en/?search=Meem_%28group%29
/info/en/?search=Blue_Diamond_Society
/info/en/?search=Australian_Lesbian_and_Gay_Archives
/info/en/?search=Coalition_of_Activist_Lesbians_Australia
/info/en/?search=Community_Action_Against_Homophobia
/info/en/?search=Transgender_Europe
/info/en/?search=Homosexualit%C3%A9s_et_Socialisme
/info/en/?search=SOS_Homophobie
/info/en/?search=Samt%C3%B6kin_%2778
/info/en/?search=Campaign_for_Homosexual_Law_Reform
/info/en/?search=COC_Nederland
/info/en/?search=Campaign_Against_Homophobia
/info/en/?search=Accept_%28organization%29
/info/en/?search=Outright_Scotland
/info/en/?search=Swedish_Federation_for_Lesbian,_Gay,_Bisexual_and_Transgender_Rights
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Youth_Northern_Ireland
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Humanist_Association
/info/en/?search=Homosexual_Law_Reform_Society
/info/en/?search=Rainbow_Alliance_of_The_Bahamas
/info/en/?search=Lesbian_and_Gay_Community_Appeal_Foundation
/info/en/?search=Affirmation:_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Mormons
/info/en/?search=Audre_Lorde_Project
/info/en/?search=Equality_California
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Medical_Association
/info/en/?search=Gay,_Lesbian_and_Straight_Education_Network
/info/en/?search=International_Foundation_for_Gender_Education
/info/en/?search=Kansas_Equality_Coalition
/info/en/?search=Maryland_Coalition_for_Trans_Equality
/info/en/?search=National_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Chamber_of_Commerce
/info/en/?search=National_Gay_and_Lesbian_Task_Force
/info/en/?search=National_Youth_Advocacy_Coalition
/info/en/?search=North_American_Conference_of_Homophile_Organizations
/info/en/?search=Rainbow_Health_Initiative
/info/en/?search=Utah_Pride_Center
/info/en/?search=Grupo_Gay_da_Bahia
/info/en/?search=Fundaci%C3%B3n_Ecuatoriana_Equidad
Note: I got tired of reading all of the edit histories after I found two examples.
For persistent editorial bias against pro lifers and especially Catholics I believe Roscelese needs a hug and to be reminded that even if we realize what she’s up to – she is still loved.
In coming to my conclusion I reviewed many of the articles Roscelese nominated for deletion, including: Family Life International of New Zealand, Virginia Society of Human Life, Natural Marriage, Douglas Karpen , and others. I also reviewed articles where she voiced a strong opinion to delete such as Rachel’s Vineyard, female privilege, and others. I also reviewed LGBT articles that she defended and voted to keep or redirect such as Homophobia in the Black Community, War on Women, and International, Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Udaan Trust, The Sisters of Mercy, and Queer Youth Student Organization, and others.
IGLYO is particularly interesting since there is not a single citation supporting the article, and yet Roscelese wrote, “Keep. Frivolous, POV-motivated nomination of subject with dozens of reliable sources to be found. User appears to have mass-nominated a number of LGBT-related articles for deletion, and these blatant WP:BEFORE failures call all the nominations into question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That was written in February 2012 and none of the editors voting to keep this unsourced article had the time to add a single citation? I thought there were “dozens to be found”? Yikes.
Ironically the nominator was reprimanded for nominating this article, which to this day lacks any citation to sources, “Keep - clearly notable and nomination seems to be a bad-faith attempt to remove articles on GLBT issues. Nominator is now indef blocked for bad faith noms including this one, so I think this can be speedily kept. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)”
The irony of user Ahunt handing out reprimands for “bad faith attempt to remove articles” is duly noted. It would appear there is a different standard for LGBT POV editors versus heterosexual POV editors. Until now they’ve been given a free pass without any hugs, but the minute a Wikipedia editor attempts to apply the same rules to LGBT articles they’re indefinitely blocked – no hugs!
He was banned for intentionally deleting LGBT articles. Why would someone intentionally target LGBT articles for deletion? It’s probably for the same reason LGBT editors target pro life and Catholic articles for deletion. They’ve been hurt and they act out online. And that reinforces a lot of the unfair stereotypes.
Another interesting example is the Sisters of Mercy article that paints the Catholic Church in a bad light. I’m not Catholic so I don’t have a dog in that fight, but here is what she said:
“I don't see that the nominator or other users supporting deletion are making arguments that connect in any way to the article in question. The nominator states that there were no charges, but the sources clearly state that the order was not only charged but found guilty. If the title is a problem, deal with it by moving, not by deleting. Absent any argument for deletion, keep. (This may also be a helpful source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"Just to clarify, the Order was never charged. An ex-member was, although I gather she was a member at the time of the alleged rape. The only other case previously covered in the article didn't result in any charges. Anyway, I didn't word the nomination well. The main issue is that there is nothing to suggest that there was a scandal in the Sisters of Mercy per se. Instead there was an incident involving an ex-member who appears to have been falsely accused of and convicted of rape before the conviction was quashed. This is covered at Nora Wall. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate any sot of scandal for the group as a whole. Thus the topic appears not to be notable. The soruce you indicate does raise issues, but again it isn't clear that this shows a larger scandal. Part of the problem is that these articles were often created by synthesis, by merging isolated abuse cases in various articles into an "Abuse scandal in the ..." article, without evidence that the isolated cases relate to a larger scandal." - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)”
Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abuse_scandal_in_the_Sisters_of_Mercy
Roscelese’s desire to keep the The Sisters of Mercy article is surprising since according to user Bilby no charges were ever brought. In a role reversal she campaigned for deletion of the Douglas Karpen article using the exact same logic, “Delete. At this point, these are only unsubstantiated allegations with little coverage in reliable sources. If there turns out to be a notable crime, it's possible that the article could be recreated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Karpen
I could look at this evidence and campaign for an indefinite topic block, but I’d much rather collaborate with Roscelese. I spend time editing articles on Wikipedia because it’s fun. I’m not here to persecute people or to allow others to be persecuted unjustly.
Roscelese, Esoglue, Afterwriting, Black Kite, Techbear, Badmintonhist, Bilby, Tparis, Intermittentgardener, Mastcell, and yours truly have to figure out a way to work together and create articles that are content neutral. I think we can do it.
Or we can be intractable and frustrate each other until we all end up leaving Wikipedia to do something that is more enjoyable. And eventually begin spreading the word that a lot of the articles cannot be trusted due to editorial bias. Lordvolton ( talk) 03:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If your case is built around Roscelese's failure to nominate specific articles for deletion, then you may as well drop it now and save yourself and everyone else a lot of time. No one will ever be sanctioned for failing to nominate an article for deletion. Never. There is no obligation for any editor to nominate articles for deletion. If your point is that Roscelese has a "double standard" for how she opines at AfD, then that's different... but even then, most Wikipedians are inconsistent in their AfD !votes. If it were a crime to have inconsistent standards at AfD, you'd need to sanction the majority of Wikipedians. MastCell Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed from my Talk page your implicit request for help, because I don't want to return immediately to the page where you are trying to get a more intelligible conversation going for its improvement. Your request has slightly unsettled my resolve to delay my returning, but not enough for action. I will just say that you might like to read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Be aware that, if there is no other way to make progress and you decide to try one of the suggestions given, there is no certainty that whoever that might bring in will really be free from prejudice. Esoglou ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from the Dream argument article on the ground that the paradox is "non-notable." May I refer you to a post of mine, dated 16 February 2018, on that article's talk page (written under my former username, Alderbourne), in which I make a case for its being notable? Incidentally, a Google search for it currently returns almost 4,000 hits. Admittedly, some of these are Wikipedia mirrors and some refer to a rock band (named after the paradox, I might add) or to what Stephen Jay Gould called James Hutton's "paradox of the soil." Even so, you cannot deny that it has attracted a fair amount of comment.
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision. If, however, you still believe the paradox is "non-notable," may I suggest you refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative?
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Please do not add this article back to see also lists when people remove it. You have seriously overdone it. Some of those articles are so distantly related as to make the link completely pointless. A Ramachandran 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
why did you move computaionalism? 1Z 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not not want the links alphabetised. I didn't even realise that was what you were doing. Sorry. I believe that I was trying to revert some vandalism and reverted the wrong edit. I apologise. -- Catalyst2007 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page Holonomic brain theory on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Catalyst2007 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do NOT remove foreign characters from articles. If you see all "???"s, I recommend installing the right language support on your computer. Nardman1 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to your criticisms because they are criticisms, I object to them because they are incomprehensible. You need to explain why the razor might not be applicable to the SH and what relevance the existence of dreaming has to the SH.
it is a heuristic rule, and not a natural law, it is not an infallible guide as to what is ultimately the truth, but only what is usually best to believe, all other things being equal. Assuming Occam's Razor were applicable to the Simulation Hypothesis citation needed, it would tell us to reject it as being too complex, in favor of reality being what it appears to be. However, critics point out that all things are not equal, as evidenced by our dreams citation needed, and therefore this analysis does not apply. Another objection is that when all things are equal the simple answer can still be wrong.
1Z 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on. It's a link to your own blog. See WP:V, "Self-published sources". 1Z 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
________
This is a rehash of the discussion section. The purpose was to illustrate a point -- when you (Peter Jones) link to either your own blog or what purports to be your "buddies" blog to make further argumentative points it weakens the article.
So far your reaction to a "citation needed" tag has been to delete it. 1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The result is people create wikis and blogs to refute you. You're dedicated to coming a conclusion for the reader rather than allowing readers to come to their own conclusion.
You've obviously researched a lot of areas and that's a good thing, but sometimes you bring too much information to a section and ask too much of the reader. The result is too much information that is off topic. Computability of Physics is a good example.
In the first paragraph you state it doesn't really apply and things are safe and then go into a long drawn out analysis. Why? Simply if it and make it comprehensible. Lordvolton 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. 1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi LV, Please jump back to simulated reality to help me a little with peter. He is a little bit argumentative rather than constructive. I noticed that occums doesnt really apply here because "all things being equal" (I saw that logical error before noticing that anyone else had the same objection) Also I did a good re-org that he blocked. Artman772000 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000
I'm not sure what you were trying to do linking the book into multiple articles on 27 December 2007. I'm removing them per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that twice now ( [1] and [2]) you've added back the same link. There are many approaches we can use to resolve this dispute. I've tried to discuss it here with you, and have also commented on talk pages of the two articles where you've restored the link. WP:THIRD is a good way to get a neutral editor to examine the situation. Perhaps we should try it? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote [3] "I wanted to open it up for some additional discussion to make sure that others were allowed to participate before a final decision was made." You're too late. A decision has been made, you cannot undo it by this means. There is an appeals process against AFD if you insist William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Measurement causes collapse, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Measurement causes collapse.
Melchoir (
talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comment on my talk page, I've added my comments to the article regarding the deletion. Just out of interest, what made you think I might have something to say on the matter? -- Rebroad ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the Measurement causes collapse page. It is a huge improvement over what was in the CCC page.
Nhall0608 (
talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Measurement causes collapse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse. Thank you. Melchoir ( talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Melchoir ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For knowing when an admin was wrong. Keep doing what you believe is right, even when others say you are wrong. Malamockq ( talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
I've blocked you for incivility. Lets try to keep the AFD polite, shall we? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For a full transcript please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse
Lordvolton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
personal bias, see my talk page.
Decline reason:
incivility was very clear. at least three phrases used were inappropriate. — BozMo talk 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Fair enough, so when I get a list of similar phrases uttered by William Connolley is he going to get the same treatment? Or will there be a double standard?
______________
I see that BozMo and William are editing pals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_to_Sea
Anyway, here are some of William Connolley's greatest hits:
“Ed, you can't even spell my name right, let alone do the science. Go on: ***in what way is that statement controversial?”
“Good grief. He can't keep his own homepage up to date.”
“Sloooowly you are getting there.”
“yet more pap. repeat after me: I do *not* need to have the last word.”
“Ed, this is stupid.”
“Just when it looked like we might agree... Ed makes a hairy mess.”
“Ed, you've lost countless arguments on the GW pages, don't re-open them here.”
“Feel free to waste your time, but in future could you please avoid wasting mine?”
“enough tedious ambiguity”
“What are you talking about, old fruit?”
The condescension and ridicule of others is obvious. But I don’t suppose his editing buddy, Bozmo, will do much about it.
I vehemently disagree with this block. What Lordvolton said was strong, but not incivil. I have seen much worse. Users using capslock, and screaming. William, you have said worse things. At most, a friendly reminder of being civil, would have been appropriate, but not a full block. Malamockq ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The excerpt below is taken from William Connolley's talk page. Initially I wasn't quite sure what BozMo was talking about when he threatened to block me. I now realize he was referencing my accidental miss spelling of the last name "Connolley" as "Connelly".
This is the kind of rogue administration that gives Wikipedia a bad name.
Lordvolton ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if you've become rather heated following the deletion of an article on a subject in which you are interested. This is not uncommon. Your comments since have been somewhat problematic, leading I see to a brief block. I'd like to give you a small piece of advice from someone who has been around here for a while and also gets angry about content disputes. The advice is this: remove all related articles and debates from your watchlist, and make a note to come back in maybe six months. Don't touch them in the mean time. Don't go to the talk pages of admins involved in the dispute, and don't try to argue that you were right all along, because having looked at the block you received I have to say that 8 hours was at the lenient end of blocks we hand out for that kind of comment. There's no point baiting the admins, because the admins are just folks. We're all volunteers here, after all. I can tell you form long past experience that escalating the dispute will only result in your gaining a reputation as a troublemaker, and that can take a while to shake off. You've had your say on the subject of consciousness causes collapse / measurement causes collapse, people have listened to what you say, but have chosen to disagree. Life, I'm afraid, is like that: people will not always agree with you. So, document what is documentable from reliabel sources at quantum mysticism, then remove that from your watchlist and move on. You will be much less wound up if you do that. Guy ( Help!) 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Getting a bit bored with User:Lordvolton. — Travis talk 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We may have a vandal on the dream argument page, but I'm not 100% certain. Qualiam's account only has edits to the Dream Argument page but he forgot to sign in and posted a comment which revealed his or her ip address.
Once we ascertain the location of the ip address all we'll need to do is narrow it down to the other posters in the group. Your help in this effort would be greatly appreciated.
Once we've isolated the culprit we can decide whether it warrants further action. Lordvolton ( talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Qualiam is removing the simulated reality section in accordance with a majority verdict on the talk page, his/her actions are entirely appropriate, you are the problem. 1Z ( talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that user:Graymornings also agrees with the deletetion. 1Z ( talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Linking all the neural net and neuron model pages to "memristor" is a bit of a stretch for relevance, don't you think? None of those pages have anything to do with hardware models. I suggest looking up analog neural networks or something similar. And linking on biological models that aren't even used in computational NNs, such as Fitzhugh-Nagumo and Hodgkin-Huxley, is enough of a stretch that I would even call it a blatant you-should-know-better mistake. SamuelRiv ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was approached by Lordvolton about this dispute, so I'm here with my 2¢. It occurs to me that, while someone may believe Lordvolton to be a "spammer" or a "crank", that simply doesn't matter. Talking about editors is a good way to lose the real topic, which is the edits. The dispute here isn't whether Lordvolton is a good editor; the dispute is whether the links he's added are good ones. I would suggest that the best way to handle that dispute is not by arguing with each other and calling names, but rather by getting other Wikipedians to comment on the edits in question.
We've got guidelines regarding linking - why not ask people at the talk page of WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK what they think? Is there a relevant WikiProject ( WP:ELEC?), where members could be asked to weigh in? I don't know the first thing about memristors, but plenty of people around here do. Why not get them involved?
I would also point out that, the way we define vandalism here ( WP:VAND), it is logically impossible for anyone who thinks they're improving Wikipedia to be vandalizing. We restrict the word "vandalism" to very clear cases, such as insertion of random obscenities, or page blanking. If you bring up accusations of vandalism in other cases, my experience has been that the time to resolve such disputes is much longer than if we stay on-topic. I think it's pretty clear that everyone in this conversation is contributing in good faith, and even if they aren't, it is not pragmatically helpful to make claims of vandalism. The only way to the solution is to stay on-topic.
Now, Lordvolton, it is now clear that there is some dispute over the memristor links. Whether or not you agree with the way the dispute was initiated, it has to be dealt with before editing can continue. Re-inserting links that have been deleted, even if you don't like the way there were deleted, tends to draw out the dispute rather than resolving it quickly. In general (excepting blatant vandalism), making any edit twice is a sign that discussion should already be going on.
Lordvolton, have you got any evidence that there is consensus support for the links in question? Have you asked people at the talk pages of the relevant articles, and what did they say? Whatever SamuelRiv may think of you, that's not the important topic. The important topic is: is it reasonable to add certain links to articles? What does the community say about that in this case?
One last thing, Lordvolton. I would recommend very strongly against "[getting] some background information on [SamuelRiv] since you seem to protest a little too much." Are we here to write an encyclopedia, or to play Cloak & Dagger? If you allow yourself to think about why he's opposed to the links, then you're going off on the same unproductive tangent that he's on when he talks about whether you're a spammer or a crank. Drop. It. Rise above it, and use these servers for talking about the encyclopedia, not about each other. If you really like each other that much, get a room. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Charlie Z. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Willking1979 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why there you are removing these redirects whilst there is an ongoing AfD proceeding on the article?-- Vintagekits ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
A friendly note, you may have breached the WP:3RR reversion limit on that article. Please be careful, and consider reversing your most recent edits there - keep in mind that separate reversions of different material are often counted towards that limit. I won't file a report and have no particular opinion on the content, just don't want to see anyone get into trouble. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Violation discussed at: [4]
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h). The discussion raises complex issues, but none of those issues give you the right to exceed the limit of three reverts in 24 hours. You are expected to search for an agreement on the Talk page, and not continue to insert your material before consensus is found. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.
I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."
"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."
"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."
81.151.135.248 ( talk) 12:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB
-- Loremaster ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Roscelese. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Douglas Karpen. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, LV, you are definitely dealing with a political POV warrior here . . . and quite an unpleasant POV warrior at that; dotes on insulting editors that she finds oppositional. In the case of the Douglas Karpen article, however, I would suggest riding out the storm. Even if the article is deleted it will likely be temporary because if the charges are true it will eventually be quite a significant story. I noticed that going back there was an early attempt to quash the Wikipedia article on Kermit Gosnell and you see what happened there. If Karpen's anywhere near as bad as Gosnell there will eventually be a very permanent Wikipedia article concerning his activities. By the way, just doing a very incomplete Google search I noticed a (London) Daily Telegraph story on Karpen. Is that source presently used in the Wiki article? Badmintonhist ( talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You did well, kiddo. And because of that I'll tell you a couple of absolutely factual Roscelese anecdotes, giving her credit where credit is due, to give you an even clearer idea of the lady. A couple of years ago she was doing a Wiki bio of an abortion performing doctor named Susan Wicklund. To make the prose slightly less worshipful of her subject I helped her with it and we actually worked fairly well together (despite her occasional snide remarks). The moment that stands out in my mind, however, is finally convincing her NOT to use the fundraising flyer of a group that wanted to build an abortion clinic in some Great Plains state as a "reliable source" for the bio. The flyer had described the behavior of the clinic's opponents in a negative way, of course, and Roscelese had originally used it to make "statements of fact" about their dastardly deeds. To be fair, she had found the words of the flyer in a column appearing in the strongly left-leaning Nation magazine (a highly suspect source for "facts" to start with) and said she thought that they were the writer's words rather than merely the flyer's. Compare a fundraising flyer as a "reliable source" to the kinds of sources that you've seen her reject recently and you get an idea of . . . well let's just say that you get the idea.
The other revealing moment came when she and her frequent ally Binksternet were working on the article Pro-life feminism. For some reason, perhaps because it's the odd pro-life country in Western Europe, they were dealing with pro-life feminism in Ireland. I noticed something strange right off bat when I saw a statement in the article to the effect that "Irish pro-life feminists stay out of politics." The idea being that they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk; their anti-abortion sentiments being expressed more or less ethereally. I was (and am) no expert on the subject but it just didn't ring true to me, not with the legality/illegality of abortion in Ireland being a pretty hot political topic in recent years. I soon found that they based this supposed "fact" on the word of ONE academic. SHE had said so and that was good enough for them, and they would not even include this "fact" as an indirect statement in the article with something like "according to feminist historian Mary McCarthy, Irish pro-life feminists stay out of the political fray." NOPE, it had to be stated directly in Wikipedia's voice. Bad as I am with doing research on-line, I fairly quickly managed to find two newspaper columns by the only Irish pro-life feminist mentioned by name in the Wiki article which utterly contradicted what Bink and Rosy were insisting was incontrovertible fact. They finally relented and agreed that the statement should be removed, but here's the kicker: Roscelese then tells me, I kid you not, that those newspaper columns hadn't surprised her at all! Kinda like she had been expecting someone to find them all along but until that time she wanted Wikipedia to say, in no uncertain terms, that pro-life feminists in the Emerald Isle were apolitical. Ahh . . . it's cathartic. Badmintonhist ( talk) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm hoping your sudden popping up at a bunch of articles I edit is just coincidence. If it is, I suggest that you find other things to be interested in, because you wouldn't want your behavior to appear suspicious. If not, I recommend that you stop using my edit history as your source of inspiration. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
After inquiring about the intent of Roscelese’s recent article deletions on her talk page user Tparis intervened and challenged me to conduct some research to determine if there was a history of Roscelese failing to impose the same standard on LGBT articles.
First I had to ascertain the standard that Roscelese applies to pro life articles and articles of organizations that do not affirm homosexuality which can be summed up as follows, “The article listed below does not have significant coverage in reliable sources needed to illustrate required notability under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has almost no citations, or none to reliable sources, and are replete with promotional language.”
Source: Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_29#Family_Life_International_.28New_Zealand.29
Next, I had to locate a list of LGBT articles, which are found here: /info/en/?search=List_of_LGBT_rights_organizations
To establish whether a clear case of editorial bias existed I then had to review the LGBT articles to determine whether: 1) Roscelese had nominated any of them for deletion, and 2) determine if they met Roscelese’s criteria for deletion.
To my surprise many of LGBT articles fall within Roscelese’s standard for deletion. And to my great disappointment she had indeed edited some of them and failed to nominate them for deletion indicating a high potential for editorial bias.
Here is a list of the LGBT articles that meet the standard for deletion w/ commentary beneath relevant articles:
/info/en/?search=The_Lesbian_%26_Gay_Foundation
/info/en/?search=OutFront_Minnesota
/info/en/?search=Gender/Sexuality_Rights_Association_Taiwan
/info/en/?search=Israel_Gay_Youth
/info/en/?search=Meem_%28group%29
/info/en/?search=Blue_Diamond_Society
/info/en/?search=Australian_Lesbian_and_Gay_Archives
/info/en/?search=Coalition_of_Activist_Lesbians_Australia
/info/en/?search=Community_Action_Against_Homophobia
/info/en/?search=Transgender_Europe
/info/en/?search=Homosexualit%C3%A9s_et_Socialisme
/info/en/?search=SOS_Homophobie
/info/en/?search=Samt%C3%B6kin_%2778
/info/en/?search=Campaign_for_Homosexual_Law_Reform
/info/en/?search=COC_Nederland
/info/en/?search=Campaign_Against_Homophobia
/info/en/?search=Accept_%28organization%29
/info/en/?search=Outright_Scotland
/info/en/?search=Swedish_Federation_for_Lesbian,_Gay,_Bisexual_and_Transgender_Rights
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Youth_Northern_Ireland
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Humanist_Association
/info/en/?search=Homosexual_Law_Reform_Society
/info/en/?search=Rainbow_Alliance_of_The_Bahamas
/info/en/?search=Lesbian_and_Gay_Community_Appeal_Foundation
/info/en/?search=Affirmation:_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Mormons
/info/en/?search=Audre_Lorde_Project
/info/en/?search=Equality_California
/info/en/?search=Gay_and_Lesbian_Medical_Association
/info/en/?search=Gay,_Lesbian_and_Straight_Education_Network
/info/en/?search=International_Foundation_for_Gender_Education
/info/en/?search=Kansas_Equality_Coalition
/info/en/?search=Maryland_Coalition_for_Trans_Equality
/info/en/?search=National_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Chamber_of_Commerce
/info/en/?search=National_Gay_and_Lesbian_Task_Force
/info/en/?search=National_Youth_Advocacy_Coalition
/info/en/?search=North_American_Conference_of_Homophile_Organizations
/info/en/?search=Rainbow_Health_Initiative
/info/en/?search=Utah_Pride_Center
/info/en/?search=Grupo_Gay_da_Bahia
/info/en/?search=Fundaci%C3%B3n_Ecuatoriana_Equidad
Note: I got tired of reading all of the edit histories after I found two examples.
For persistent editorial bias against pro lifers and especially Catholics I believe Roscelese needs a hug and to be reminded that even if we realize what she’s up to – she is still loved.
In coming to my conclusion I reviewed many of the articles Roscelese nominated for deletion, including: Family Life International of New Zealand, Virginia Society of Human Life, Natural Marriage, Douglas Karpen , and others. I also reviewed articles where she voiced a strong opinion to delete such as Rachel’s Vineyard, female privilege, and others. I also reviewed LGBT articles that she defended and voted to keep or redirect such as Homophobia in the Black Community, War on Women, and International, Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Udaan Trust, The Sisters of Mercy, and Queer Youth Student Organization, and others.
IGLYO is particularly interesting since there is not a single citation supporting the article, and yet Roscelese wrote, “Keep. Frivolous, POV-motivated nomination of subject with dozens of reliable sources to be found. User appears to have mass-nominated a number of LGBT-related articles for deletion, and these blatant WP:BEFORE failures call all the nominations into question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That was written in February 2012 and none of the editors voting to keep this unsourced article had the time to add a single citation? I thought there were “dozens to be found”? Yikes.
Ironically the nominator was reprimanded for nominating this article, which to this day lacks any citation to sources, “Keep - clearly notable and nomination seems to be a bad-faith attempt to remove articles on GLBT issues. Nominator is now indef blocked for bad faith noms including this one, so I think this can be speedily kept. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)”
The irony of user Ahunt handing out reprimands for “bad faith attempt to remove articles” is duly noted. It would appear there is a different standard for LGBT POV editors versus heterosexual POV editors. Until now they’ve been given a free pass without any hugs, but the minute a Wikipedia editor attempts to apply the same rules to LGBT articles they’re indefinitely blocked – no hugs!
He was banned for intentionally deleting LGBT articles. Why would someone intentionally target LGBT articles for deletion? It’s probably for the same reason LGBT editors target pro life and Catholic articles for deletion. They’ve been hurt and they act out online. And that reinforces a lot of the unfair stereotypes.
Another interesting example is the Sisters of Mercy article that paints the Catholic Church in a bad light. I’m not Catholic so I don’t have a dog in that fight, but here is what she said:
“I don't see that the nominator or other users supporting deletion are making arguments that connect in any way to the article in question. The nominator states that there were no charges, but the sources clearly state that the order was not only charged but found guilty. If the title is a problem, deal with it by moving, not by deleting. Absent any argument for deletion, keep. (This may also be a helpful source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"Just to clarify, the Order was never charged. An ex-member was, although I gather she was a member at the time of the alleged rape. The only other case previously covered in the article didn't result in any charges. Anyway, I didn't word the nomination well. The main issue is that there is nothing to suggest that there was a scandal in the Sisters of Mercy per se. Instead there was an incident involving an ex-member who appears to have been falsely accused of and convicted of rape before the conviction was quashed. This is covered at Nora Wall. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate any sot of scandal for the group as a whole. Thus the topic appears not to be notable. The soruce you indicate does raise issues, but again it isn't clear that this shows a larger scandal. Part of the problem is that these articles were often created by synthesis, by merging isolated abuse cases in various articles into an "Abuse scandal in the ..." article, without evidence that the isolated cases relate to a larger scandal." - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)”
Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abuse_scandal_in_the_Sisters_of_Mercy
Roscelese’s desire to keep the The Sisters of Mercy article is surprising since according to user Bilby no charges were ever brought. In a role reversal she campaigned for deletion of the Douglas Karpen article using the exact same logic, “Delete. At this point, these are only unsubstantiated allegations with little coverage in reliable sources. If there turns out to be a notable crime, it's possible that the article could be recreated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Karpen
I could look at this evidence and campaign for an indefinite topic block, but I’d much rather collaborate with Roscelese. I spend time editing articles on Wikipedia because it’s fun. I’m not here to persecute people or to allow others to be persecuted unjustly.
Roscelese, Esoglue, Afterwriting, Black Kite, Techbear, Badmintonhist, Bilby, Tparis, Intermittentgardener, Mastcell, and yours truly have to figure out a way to work together and create articles that are content neutral. I think we can do it.
Or we can be intractable and frustrate each other until we all end up leaving Wikipedia to do something that is more enjoyable. And eventually begin spreading the word that a lot of the articles cannot be trusted due to editorial bias. Lordvolton ( talk) 03:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If your case is built around Roscelese's failure to nominate specific articles for deletion, then you may as well drop it now and save yourself and everyone else a lot of time. No one will ever be sanctioned for failing to nominate an article for deletion. Never. There is no obligation for any editor to nominate articles for deletion. If your point is that Roscelese has a "double standard" for how she opines at AfD, then that's different... but even then, most Wikipedians are inconsistent in their AfD !votes. If it were a crime to have inconsistent standards at AfD, you'd need to sanction the majority of Wikipedians. MastCell Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed from my Talk page your implicit request for help, because I don't want to return immediately to the page where you are trying to get a more intelligible conversation going for its improvement. Your request has slightly unsettled my resolve to delay my returning, but not enough for action. I will just say that you might like to read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Be aware that, if there is no other way to make progress and you decide to try one of the suggestions given, there is no certainty that whoever that might bring in will really be free from prejudice. Esoglou ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lordvolton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from the Dream argument article on the ground that the paradox is "non-notable." May I refer you to a post of mine, dated 16 February 2018, on that article's talk page (written under my former username, Alderbourne), in which I make a case for its being notable? Incidentally, a Google search for it currently returns almost 4,000 hits. Admittedly, some of these are Wikipedia mirrors and some refer to a rock band (named after the paradox, I might add) or to what Stephen Jay Gould called James Hutton's "paradox of the soil." Even so, you cannot deny that it has attracted a fair amount of comment.
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision. If, however, you still believe the paradox is "non-notable," may I suggest you refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative?
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)