User talk:Algis Kuliukas

Hi, Algis,

I have read your very interesting contributions to AAH at the english wikipedia and your website www.riverapes.com. I've done some work on the german wikipedia article on that topic. Please contact me at my german wikipedia page (Benutzer Plattmaster) or via my homepage http://www.plattmaster.de There you'll find my email adress, too (no direct mailto tag because of spamming dangers). Kind Regards G. Kraft (Plattmaster)

Hi Algis

May I point out that I only added an empty line to see whether it was possible for another wiki user to edit your user account ? Since that was the case I could be certain that Redgrove Square (whoever he is) had indeed vandalised your account. I have no intention of doing so, but at least I can now be convinced that your posts in TheScienceForum are genuine and not part of a trolling exercise.

Apologies for having suspected this of you

Marnix — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnixR (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note this sock puppet investigation. My apologies, I should have informed you earlier. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - it's very helpful and takes the heat out of things. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am trying to calm my anger at what has happened. It would really take the heat out of things if I felt that someone in "authority" here has a microgram of impartiality and showed a modicum of understanding of the subject. These are rather modest, plausible, Darwinian ideas - they do not belong in the same "crazy box" as creationism, big foot, Von Daniken, etc. You are acting as classic defenders of an old paradigm in exactly the way Khun describes. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Algis, I'm sorry that you've become so frustrated over this but you have to understand that our motivation as experienced Wikipedia editors is not to censor you or be the "defenders of an old paradigm." I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia: it's not a clearinghouse for whatever research an academic produces but a mirror of whatever research is considered significant by the scientific community. Please try to understand that we're excluding your work not because we hate new ideas but because it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, it hasn't received any published criticism/response from other researchers, and it was published by a publishing company that is not considered to have a rigorous review process. Because you haven't met any of those three conditions for reliability, your eBook is not considered "reliable" and "significant" within Wikipedia's definitions of the term.


 * I agree with you that much of the information on Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is sourced poorly. The reason that the page is protected with that material included is because the basis for the protection is a content dispute, necessitating that the page be protected at the current version when the admin got to it according to WP:PREFER (and please read the links when a Wiki editor hyperlinks something because we do so to allow new editors to learn about contributing to the encyclopedia). When the protection expires, I hope that you'll go to that page and help clean out the non-relaible cruft that seems to have developed over the past few years. Cordially, Chillllls (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is a very poor excuse for what has occurred here. Elaine Morgan's books on the subject were also not peer reviewed and yet they're cited here - quite rightly - because Elaine is a key proponent of the idea and it is the purpose of this page to inform the public about what the idea is (not whether it's good or not). If someone wanted to know what the idea was until recently, the best they could do would have been to read a few of her books.
 * If someone wanted to know what the "aquatic ape hypothesis" was today, there's a new book they could read too which, we think, would give them a more complete, and - rather more scientifically argued, coverage of the idea/s. Elaine is also an author of this book too, so there's continuity. If such a person came to Wikipedia to find out about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" today, they'd expect to see Elaine's books on the subject (and they'd see them listed) but they'd also expect to see the latest book on the subject too (which has now, oddly, been censored out). Why?
 * Note that none of us have tried to change the wording or slant of the page itself (even though it is quite openly biased against the idea) - and neither should you, if you are true to the policy of neutrality.
 * The material point here is this: The purpose of this page is to inform the public about what the idea/s is/are. Some of us, who take the idea seriously enough to have academically studied it and conducted primary scientific research on it, have just gone to a considerable amount of effort to write a book to help explain this to the public and so this page should include a reference to that book too. Anything less amounts to censorship. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've attempted to be civil and explain Wikipedia's rules to you and you simply put your fingers in your ears and demanded that your book be included while simultaneously crying that not including it is "censorship." You continue to imply that there is some grand conspiracy to exclude "Aquatic Ape scholarship." All that I see is a PhD student trying to sell copies of an extremely expensive eBook. I think that any further effort on my part to explain what has happened with the article is futile. Chillllls (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to the Kindle Store and search for "human evolution" and then tell me it's expensive. I will not get one cent from this anyway. I had thought, by publishing a book on the latest thinking on these idea, we were informing the public and reducing the general ignorance about it. I imagined that Wikipedia's page on the subject should include a link to this book as it is scholarly, more scientifically written than previous books (except Roede et al.), it's written by all the key proponents, has a contribution from a top palaeoanthropologist and, most of all, it is totally pertinent to the subject on the page. If the public went to that page, they'd expect to be able to find all the latest, pertinent links to find out more. Somehow, you are finding excuses from the the Wikipedia rule book, to prevent this page doing the primary thing it is meant to do - inform the public. I do not imagine that there is any "grand conspiracy", actually, thank you. I have repeatedly argued, over many years that this kind of thing is exactly the kind of phenomenon predicted by Khun when one paradigm is replaced by another. It's very frustrating to witness intelligent people today falling for the same "group think" sneering that has plagued the history of science throughout the ages. "Futile", is the word. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I only read this just now. I did post to the talk page but it was ignored. The "source" for this gossip was not even the correct blog. Hawks claim is unsourced gossip. Please tell me which WP rule states that unsourced gossip is fair material for WP. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Algis_Kuliukas for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on contributions, not commentors
Per this comment, you're basically saying I can't be trusted because, apparently, I've edited the page a lot. It's pointless baiting that adds nothing to the debate and appears to be either you venting your frustration, or an attempt to get my opinion discounted for what looks like a very bizarre reason.

If there are myriad reliable sources, particularly textbooks and recent review articles that point to the AAH being widely accepted - cite them. In any case, comments like the above assist nobody and merely add further acrimony to an already difficult page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just re-read your contributions to the administrator's noticeboard discussion (in the archives here). Combined with your most recent contribution to the AAH talk page, it raises concerns about your civility and ability to contribute fruitfully to heated discussions on wikipedia.  Irrespective your personal feelings, you are expected to be reasonably civil to other editors and the community at large.  Accusing other editors of not being impartial, censoring information and providing sarcastic suggestions do nothing to advance the page, create acrimony, drives away other contributors and on a purely self-interested level, makes people like you less which in turn makes them less likely to give your substantive suggestions any credibility.  You can be blocked or banned for civility reasons, so please temper your tone and attempt to address the issues on the talk pages in a more constructive fashion.  The user essay WP:GIANTDICK may be fruitful reading.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people here (me for example) have had comments removed - and indeed the page was locked - on the basis of giving too much attention to a single topic. I was just pointing out that you have edited this page more than anyone - twice more than the 2nd most. As usual, the criticism here is one-way. People like you have been just as uncivil to anyone who supports these idea. The only difference is that you have managed to find yourself in a position of authority here and so can make your comments with impunity. Some of your fellow "experienced editors" have repeatedly made groundless slurs against our work ("Vanity press", "Not peer reviewed" etc) in order to justify censoring it out of the page. How civil do you think that is being? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. S Æ don talk 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Elaboration
Hi,

If you are having a content dispute with other editors there are a number of avenues you can pursue outlined at WP:DR. What you shouldn't do is use the article talk page to attack other editors (e.g calling them liars) or to allege injustice. Talk pages are to discuss specific ways we can improve the article. I realize you're frustrated but as a man of logic I'm sure you can understand that you are unlikely to get your way by engaging in such behavior. Follow the aforementioned dispute resolution process and if your argument is correct you will likely build WP:CONSENSUS among other editors. S Æ don talk 05:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)