Talk:Gaia philosophy/Archive 3

I give up. I am not letting Anthere cut our article into three, with almost EXACTLY THE SAME CONTENT, and then confuse readers with his own unqiue bizarrely lower-case and upper-case titled names. If he has some sort of lower-case, upper-case obsession, let him get help offline. RK

Okay you two, calm down. Maybe you guys need to both take a break and do something offline for a while. These articles are not worth having a brain hemmorhage over :) -- Wapcaplet 23:52 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anthere and RK, please consider reading Staying cool when the editing gets hot. -- Wapcaplet 23:57 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The anger is all one way. I am letting Anthere add what he likes. So are you.  But Anthere is trying to delete everything I write.  He has no right to claim ownership over this article.  He now is claiming that everything I writ is POV and false...but tellingly, he can't provide a single example of what he disputes.  Hmm, why not? I am willing to discuss the issue...but he refuses to.  He won't say a single word about the content of any article; he just keeps doing mass-reversions. We can't discuss the issue if he refuses to explain his mass-deletions. That is vandalism. RK


 * See RK. You started yesterday willing to have one article. While we discussing renaming, you chose to massively and unilateraly change everything, all the while pretending there was a consensus over this, when there was none. You got your unique article. I see no pb with you editing. But you made massive changes all at once. Some are perfectly ok; some are not at all. When there are so many changes, I can't find my way. As you mentionned it so nicely, I don't read well english, yes ? You don't even leave me time to edit the article or to explain quietly what is wrong. You just keep insulting me on comments, while I do not. You say I am a vandal. Fine. Ask sysops to ban me. No problem. I let the article that way, because it is too late anyway. But I refuse to work with somebody insulting me and saying I am unable to understand english, who pretend I create 5 identical articles when this is pure crap, claiming I own the article, when I hardly ever edited it. Stop pretending you let me edit it, while you revert each time with further liars and insults. Be happy, do it your way. ant

I'm getting it from both sides. In all honesty I have no interest in trying to mediate the war you guys have going on. I just think you should both take a break and come back later. You're both calling each other vandals, neither of you seem to think there is anything to discuss... I don't want to participate in the accusations and criticism. Relax, watch TV, go have a cup of tea, come back when you're not so emotionally involved. -- Wapcaplet 00:25 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Uh, I explicitly stated exactly what I intend to do, and why. I also invited discussion by putting this idea on this discussion page. Not a single person objected. Even you now say that you don't actually object, because you say that you can't understand the paragraph I wrote.  Not my fault.  In any case, how is explaining one's views, and inviting discussion, "anti-Wiki"?  Get a grip!  And I have no idea what you mean by "scattering" all the miscellaneous points.  I do know that your grasp of English is not as good as you claim; in English, the phrase "Gaia theory" refers almost exclusively to biology. Your claims to the contrary are simply false, and you can't make them true with argument by repetition. Do what you will on French-Wiki, but stop harassing me on English-Wiki, and stop grosslty misrepresenting all my beliefs on the Wiki-En list. I really do not deserve such dishonest tactics. RK 02:56 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah ? Since you refuse any further clarification of your intent, I will wait for your move. From what I understood, you can probably expect a reversion. But if you think reversion is more constructive than word-discussion, there is no problem with me. This is the only way you permit view exchange between you and I; So if that can help me understand exactly what you mean, it is good :-) For the record, Toby agrees that Gaia theory is not only about science. Everything I agree with, I will keep, everything I don't, I will revert. That is the way we discuss, which do not need much words. Why not. Rules are set. Your move. Anthere


 * I repeatedly have clarified my intent. How many times do you want me to do this again? I have written about this many times on the Wiki-English list, and here as well. Your claims to the contrary are totally dishonest. Again, disagreeing with me is one thing, but flat-out lying about my point of view, and about what I have written, is not ok. If you cannot cooperate with others, leave this project. This is a group effort, ok? RK 14:07 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The article claims "Buckminster Fuller is generally credited with making the idea respectable in Western scientific circles in the 20th century."

Really? I have never read a statement link this from any scientist. Please clarify, and provide sources. RK 15:26 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * who are you talking to RK ?

ANTHERE AND RK --

Quit it. I will protect the page and let the mailing list know -- if someone else wants to unprotect it, fine, but you two are behaving like children. I find it particularly appalling that, instead of asking for sysops to freeze the page till tempers fade, I am seeing requests for bans. JHK


 * Anthere may not speak English well enough to let things go. Check out her recent posts about on me on the Wiki-En mailing list. She has posted a list of totally false claims about me; she is repeatedly attacks positions I do not hold and beliefs I do not have. I have clarified my views many time, yet she ignores all of my letters. The problem is her, and her alone. She needs help; please talk to her, and see if you can get her to re-read my letters. It just is pathetic to see her enraged, attacking all sorts of things I never actually said. She still acts as if disambiguation is censorship, which is just silly, if not pathetic. Doesn't this bother you somewhat? RK 18:29 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I read your emails, and they seemed disingenuous and untrustworthy. Koyaanis Qatsi 18:31 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, RK, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't bother me as much as the fact that you BOTH are obsessive about this and are creating a truly unpleasant atmosphere. It also bothers me that, although Anthere agreed to a freeze (and it doesn't matter which verson is frozen to most of us -- I'm certainly not going to pick a version -- just refer people to the edit war page), you haven't shown any kind of willingness to back off. Not down, just off. As for the rest, to quote Paul Drye, "Pot. Kettle. Black." I'm protecting the page. JHK


 * KQ, I find it bizarre that you accuse me of lying about my own beliefs and positions? Why would I do such a thing?  Listen, instead of creating more flame wars by posting ad homenin personal attacks, why not be helpful, and write about the specific issues that this dispute is about, ok?  For instance, the need for us to use standard Wikipedia disambiguation technqiues.  Please try and be mature. RK 18:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said. I was talking about your summary of the events, which struck me as disingenuous.  I was not commenting about your beliefs, or your motivations, nor am I interested in them.  Koyaanis Qatsi 18:41 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * JHK, as for your "pot, kettle, black" remark, I find that rather childish. There are some serious issues that need to be resolved here, and this childish insult is not helping. For days now I have been pleading for people to address specific issues, yet all I get are personal attacks, ad homenin remarks, and a series of lies about me by Anthere. And to top it off, a few people on Wiki-En are accusing me of lying about my own beliefs!  That's just ignorant, and I find your refusal to discuss the actual points of dispute telling. RK 18:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * RK -- If you read my posts to the list, you'd know that I don't give a rat's ass about the content OR your arguments. I have NO INTEREST in this, and so am objective by default.  I just want the unpleasantness to stop, and in that you cannot say that  you are not party to its propogation.  Now you appear to be trying to turn this into something personal between you and KQ and you and me.  Not playing.  JHK

Anthere and I are not disputing the correctness of any part of the content. The dispute is about which content should be in which articles. Anthere is refusing to allow anyone to use standard Wikipedia disambiguation techniques; she is jamming every single idea into the same entry. She also is unfamiliar with how most English speakers use this phrase. Finally, Anthere has finally admitted what may be the root cause of her issues: She has stated that previous attempts at disambiguation were "censorship". For some reason, she believes that if all content is not jammed into this one entry, then this information is being censored, or deleted. That's not true at all, of course. I have repeatedly told her that I am not trying to delete or censor this information, but she nonetheless imagines that I am secretly planning on doing this. That is quite unfortunate.

For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not being allowed here? Let's change the Gaia article to a disambiguation page (proposal follows) RK 19:23 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- -

RK, you just can't remove this page. Gaia Theory was originally proposed as The Gaia Hypothesis by James Lovelock in 1972. Please check your references. It was found in Gaia: a new look at life on earth. It just is not the same thing that the Gaia theory proposed later. Anthere


 * Wrong. Read the discussion. You are refuting a claim I am not making. RK 01:51 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why is RK intent on suppressing Lovelock's ideas? Pizza Puzzle
 * He's not, as you'll see if you read his comments and the article. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:42 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * He is making confusion between the original work (which he called hypothesis, was supported by the simulation, and is related to homeostasis, and is a lot about chemistry) and the work later done, usually refered to as Theory (which is more from a biological perspective, and is about homeorhesis). The hypothesis is very well known, and is known under *this* term precisely. As such, it deserves an article on itself, not to be hidden. User:anthere


 * Anthere, please stop repeating this incorrect claim. English speakers do not refer to Lovelock's original idea as the "Gia hypothesis", and then refer to later science work on this topic as the "Gaia theory". English speakers do not use this odd terminology. Ever.'  When English speakers refer to this topic, they refer to Lovelock's original idea, and later work on it by other scientists with the same name.  Sometimes English speakers use the phrase "gaia hypothesis" to refer to this...both Lovelock's original idea and later ideas. Sometimes English speakers use the phrase "gaia theory " to refer to this...both Lovelock's original idea and later ideas.  But they do not use the word "theory" to refer to non-Lovelock ideas, and "hypothesis" to refer solely to Lovelock' ideas.  Why do you keep insisting on this incorrect terminology?  Its not even a big point anyway. RK 20:09 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

I guess I can't. I see too many "Do you speak English" and "you are just trolling" and I just can't read anything RK writes or edits. Pizza Puzzle

I think that till the topic is resolved (that is when every editor allowed to edit wikipedia agrees on a solution), this article stays here as it is. Besides, I made some edits yesterday to that article. I think they are worth keeping, not just to be replaced by a redirect. User:Anthere

-