User talk:Amaltheus

 Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project. The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources. If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

User:Amaltheus/Citations reference

The real strategy to avoiding side-ways motions

 * 1) When someone offers a suggestion respond to the suggestion, don't attack the individual personally who made the suggestion.
 * 2) When you fail number 1 don't deny it and assault and attack and threaten and blame the person for getting upset with you. Don't hound them to pieces.  Don't search their edit history for every imperfection, they're new, they discussed the article on the talk page, whatever you can find to list as a fault.
 * 3) When you fail number 1 apologize for real. A real apology consists of saying you're sorry for what you did.  Not of saying you're sorry if someone was offended by your behavior.  It doesn't consist of any comments on your part about another's behavior-that's an excuse not an apology.  Don't expect an apology in return.  Just take responsibility for what you did.  Just say you're sorry and then move back to the issue, the article, and discussing it.

But, the most important suggestion is to be so interested in your topic that you could not consider discussing a stranger instead. The worst thing about this is that it was boring compared to a discussion on the role of sex in eukaryotic biodiversity. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Valerian Onitiu
I believe that FIDE did not begin awarding titles for composition until 1959. Valerian Onitiu died in 1948, and to my knowledge FIDE does not award titles posthumously. Quale (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, you're right, and he's an earlier problemist. I still think the best thing, if you think he's notable, would be to look up information off-line about the major problem.  Still, I wonder about the notability comparative with other problemist, particularly without information about a spectacular single problem if his overall FIDE score isn't real high.  Amaltheus (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in chess problems in general, so I'm not a goood judge of what is a spectacular single problem. What about the problem used as an example in the article?  It's also found in the grasshopper article and was added about 5 months before the Onitiu article was created.    One of the co-authors of the problem was the inventor of the grasshopper.  To be fair, the creator of the grasshopper article is also the creator of the Onitiu article, but he has expertise in the field of chess composition that I lack.  Quale (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the best judge, either. I think the one problem may be good enough to confer notability, which is why I encouraged the authors to review that off line and add information to the article.  Chess is tricky, though, notability in it.  I've researched players for family members, and deciding their notability required multiple sources.  But there are many print sources available for that purpose: to debate the notability (or, in the case of what I was doing: playability) of another player.  There's a robust on-line community, but it's nothing like what's available off-line for chess players, and not all sources are in English.  The author might be better served to include the problem in a grasshopper article, research it off line, then add the article about Onitiu.  I don't think the lack of notability is so easily proclaimed with a chess problemist, though.  There are players with almost no declared notability that, I swear, everyone who played would bow down to if given the opportunity.  --Amaltheus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I did read the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia policies aren't easily interpreted. They're not what is practiced in the community, for instance, so it's not easy to go by that.  What would be most useful, imo, is to declare he is notable in chess and let the cards fall where they may.

list of materials analysis methods

 * Hi!
 * Thanks for your edits on that page! I put some comments on the proposal page about it. I think it is a wonderful way of addressing a real need for us in the physical sciences: most of us are pretty lost in the forest of ever proliferating techniques. Any easier and more transparent the entry into it can be is imho a blessing for science, including for our students and their teachers.

Jcwf (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had put something here but that may not be the proper place. I dont usually contribute on en: I have been a nl: user mostly (since 2002) and am now mostly on nl:wiktionary. However, I am also in Physical and Solid State chemistry and I ma even conspiring to use the the techniqes page as basis for a cumulative exam I am putting together for our grad students. I'd love to get some critical mass together to make this a good portal or so and I appreciate any input from your side Jcwf (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A portal is something like this: Portal:Chemistry which is a sub-portal of Portal:Science. Jcwf (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your intervention on my behalf. Kkmurray does have a point: my cat stinks but then not having any cat on a lot of those pages does too, and one has to start somewhere. One thing that needs to be done imho is to find a good system of cats and subcats. Beste stuurlui staan aan wal (Dutch proverb: the best captains can always be found on shore..)
 * While I sympathize with your suggestion to limit it to material char. technique I actually think that should be one of the subcats and would love to see an overall structure for all the physical (or even other..) sciences. Obviously that would require input from other people than just you and me, so starting with the mat-char stuff is not a bad idea. I did notice that the bio people have a pretty extensive category system of their 'methods'. I;d rather call them techniques though.
 * Another idea I had is to develop a standard template for techniques that summarizes a number of characteristics: What do you hit the sample with? (e.g. neutrons) What do you measure? (e.g. characteristic X-rays) What info do you get (e.g. atomic composition). What requirements? (e.g. high vac.) Is it a surface technique? What area of science is it used in? etc. Maybe it is hard to come up with something applicable in all cases. Id appreciate your thoughts

Jcwf (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro to evo
Don't post here about the Introduction to evolution article. I've put up with all the shit I'm going to. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No posts from Introduction to evolution article owners will be read. Have the decency to stop badgering, mocking and playing with me.  Get out of here. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bullying" and "appeasement"
I think in your understandable anger you've completely mistaken me for someone else. Did you see this. Please calm down. --Dweller (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment
Huh? Harassing anybody is against the rules. (What you posted on my talk page is a serious accusation, so if you know of a case when you were harassed with an administrator's support, you should post that incident at administrators' noticeboard at minimum. Other applicable processes include requests for comment and - as the last instance - arbitration.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was considerate of you, Mike, to stop by and offer suggestions.  Thanks.   --Amaltheus (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Find fault with the articles and not with me. Cheers Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gladly. As soon as you stop finding fault with me and misrepresenting your participation I will stop responding to you. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The mental illness exchange:

,,

Interesting, I'm now no longer a human being, but an "it." NPA again, doesn't seem to apply to attacks against me. In fact, it appears to be an invitation.

":If I have upset you in some way, then I am sorry. The other party doesn't seem to mind however (see and ), so apologies would be misplaced in this case. By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board. It might be capable of making valuable contributions to the project, but as the history shows, it behaves abominably - at least in my perception. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Emphasis added.)

I've never been called an it before. Anywhere. But considering the nature of the earlier exchange diagnosing mental illness in others on the web, it's not all that surprising that the first time is on Wikipedia from someone justifying their ability to diagnose mental illnesses in others on the web. And, again, signed, sealed and delivered the Wikipedia Administrator Stamp of Approval.

To Dweller, in language approved by other Wikipedia administrators, just to make sure I get it right and polite, before you post again here or about me, please reconsider. Stop it! Cheers!

--Amaltheus (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New section
. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
Now that I've stepped through Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution diff by diff, I have a better sense of who wrote what. Please tell me if this is correct. Almost everything written after the section break is yours, but Random Replicator moved large chunks out to the talk page and has broken up your commentary with underscored "done" remarks, and you have struck that which you agree is done. So everything after the section break that is not indented (after I tried to correct the threading) and not struck is what you still have concerns about. Is that correct? (It would help if other editor's didn't break up and edit your commentary, as that makes it hard for me to sort through.) Is there anything unresolved above the section break? It's been a long and difficult FAC, and I appreciate the patience by all and see that you've made good suggestions; it's time to focus on anything important remaining to be resolved, as yours is the only significant remaining oppose. I will try to follow the FAC more closely now, to avoid the threading/indenting/moving commentary issues that have resulted in a messy FAC so far. I suggest all stay focused on the article; normally, FACs this messy would be restarted, but this one seems almost over the hump, so I hate to restart it. You are correct that comments about the FAC belong on the FAC and not on your talk page, but brevity is appreciated :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new summary on the FAC page, Amaltheus. I hope all will work towards resolving the few remaining concerns now, as the article is so close.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, I'm happy to see everyone working together as well as they can towards proposed wording to resolve the remaining issues. Many of your suggestions have been adopted. With twelve supports the FAC is well along towards developing consensus, so I hope you all can resolve any remaining differences soon. Proposing exact wording for issues that still concern you might be the best way forward now. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, proposing exact wording was what got me in trouble in the first place. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to side with anyone; just trying to help get the issues resolved. I hope your studies go well.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? It is irritating that the gang that bashed me when I suggested adding sex to the summary box doesn't know what Watson and Crick contributed to evolutionary biology today, can't define "evolution," and constantly has to be corrected on the most basic things in their article.

My first comment about reproduction in the info box was simply ignored-no one responded, commented or noted it. They edited the box as if my suggestion had not been posted. I tried again. Here's what led them to spend the past 3 weeks hammering me:

"Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general. Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent. While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"

And in response I was told that I was trying to "destroy the article" by "insisting that even 13-15 year olds must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject," and that I was trying to "shove so much extra crap into the" summary box that it would "become worthless." If adding a single three-letter word to an info box will destroy the article it needed the help anyhow.

I learned my lesson with that one and the week RR and his friends spent making nasty comments about me on their talk pages-it's not safe to say something in a neutral manner about this article, it will be ignored or get the poster battered. I was fine with the change in the Watson and Crick in the article. I said, "yes," in answer to your question and struck out my comment. Again, my posting a simple straight-forward response to a question or an issue got me mauled by the wiki-gang. RR posted his question indented under my response-seeming to completely dismiss my response, then commanded me not to do the same thing to him. You indicated in an edit summary that I was not following indent/responses, so now I should assume that others aren't, also? I assume you would have commented had others not been following.

That one remark of mine about sex and my simple "yes" had nothing offensive, defensive, or earning the type of responses I got and the type of nastiness still directed at me. The article can either stand on substantive issues or it shouldn't be on the Main Page. And the editors seem to think it will be easier to defend their incorrect statements on evolution and poorly references sources. It won't. It will just make Wikipedia a target for the creationists if Wikipedia does so poorly and features an article on evolution that is factually inaccurate or shows a major misunderstanding of the history of science. I don't see why anyone wants that.

This article was not anywhere near a FA when it started. The nomination should have been withdrawn. It should have been reviewed by someone with a background in biology or evolutionary biology. And they would have been attacked just like I was attacked.

--Amaltheus (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the going was tough; Wiki can be that way, Amaltheus. To survive, one has to be able to put it aside and focus on content, or it will get to you.  Remember we're all just internet volunteers, and in that sense, we're the only experts we've got.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't appear to be allowed. I thought the content would have been more interesting than playing games about me.  This seems not to be the case, though.  And the games keep coming on. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity
Tried to organize a bit on FA. If I have placed Done under any of yours that you no longer consider a problem could you strike it out. If I have Done and it is still a problem your welcome to delete it and I try again. Both Weinberg and Barriers to speciation are gone; so that might have eliminated a few. There have also been edits since the earlier (higher up list) that may have been resolved as well. I want to go through and see if there is anything I have the skills to fix. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry never mind, I just realized that was a summary at the end not a continutation of new concerns. I'll look it over and see if it is anything that I am able to address.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Amaltheus has edited a comment of mine on his talk page to give the appearance that I was involved in a fictitious attack dialogue.

I left a message on his talk page here on 21 Jan.

I see today, at User talk:Amaltheus that it has become part of some fictitious dialogue under the sub-heading 'Harassment'. I never participated in this conversation.

This is a serious violation of the Talk page guideline. Under Behavior that is unacceptable, the guideline says:

Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.

and

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Note that Behavior that is unacceptable ... are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.

Could another admin please look at this? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a diff of the edit in question? Nakon  01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't assume the worst. Snalwibma removed all the comments, and Amaltheus restored them. He just forgot to restore the title section. I see a lot of quarreling in his page, so I would give him the benefit of doubt that he just forgot to restore the title of that section. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not assuming 'good faith' here because I see personal attack. Apparently, here on 09:27 22 Jan did remove comments directed at Snalwibma that built up under the sub-heading that I added 'Please'.


 * Then, on 3:25 24 Jan (two days) later, Amaltheus refactored my comment into an attack dialogue. See here where Amaltheus uses the edit summary of 'Restoring stuff. I think enjoying speculating about my having a mental illness doesn't make one the best judge of "appropriateness." My comments had nothing to do with this. Amaltheus has created a fictitious argument with me in the middle. This is seriously the worst I can imagine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me if I am wrong, but the only difference between what you posted and what he restored is the section title? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, what comes before and after my comment. Amaltheus has changed the context of my comment to make it appear as if I am attacking him. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that he was rather exalted, however I think his summary (somewhat offensive, yes) was directed towards Snalwibma, not you, since he was the one who removed the comments. My point is that he wrote a reply to Snalwibma, who removed it including your comment, and then Amaltheus restored it (although not in the original position). Refactoring the page to put the comments in order could be possible, do you want that? I am not sure if a block would be right, but that is because of my own event interpretation (which differs with yours). However, another admin can disagree with me and take different measures. Did you warn him that the talk was restored in a different position taking it out of context? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I have no desire to communicate with Amaltheus on the talk page if he is deleting and constantly refactoring the page. Just look through the talk page edits; that alone goes against Talk page guidelines where it says "Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it." Amaltheus deletes pieces here and there. To me, Amaltheus is playing games and manufacturing discussions to suit himself. I think an outside admin should delete the ficititious dialogue including my comment, and warn Amaltheus. I actually think a block is warranted in this case but I'll let a cooler headed admin decide. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is reviewing this, please just note that the "edited highlights" restored by Amaltheus to his talk page represent a gross misrepresentation of what actually went on, omitting (for a start) all the provocation from Amaltheus himself that led to the comments he has preserved for posterity! Also, he did not by any means simply restore what had been deleted - he edited it and inserted comments of his own, and (as Wassupwestcoast says) left a piece of Wassup's unrelated text in a misleading place. Throughout, Amaltheus has deleted swathes of comments from his talk page, including the polite and friendly ones. I suggest that the whole sorry and misleading mess should be deleted from his talk page (perhaps in such a way that it cannot be restored), and he should be told to behave with at least a modicum of civility towards others. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One from the FAC


":OMG... I've been away for a couple of days, and then I come back to find this. I haven't time to read all of it in detail, but on the basis of a quick skim-through it strikes me that: (1) The "very strong oppose" from Amaltheus originated, as far as I can see, in a minor disagreement about the wording of the summary box and whether to cover just eukaryotes in the text / in the box. (2) The "very strong oppose" seems to be based on a grievance at the way Amaltheus feels he/she has been treated, rather than on the article itself and whether it's worthy of FA status. (3) I cannot see any substantive reason given by Amaltheus to support the opposition - and whatever about the recent unfortunate spat, the accusations of WP:OWN, and the fears that the article will inevitably be subject to edit-warring, are completely unwarranted. (4) Like Amaltheus, I care about the article's continuing value and accuracy. But what it does not need is this sort of nit-picking attack. And sorry, it is nitpicking. This is an introductory article. It is bound to blur a few fine distinctions and skate over a few details. In summary, I can see no justification for writing "very strong oppose" on the FAC page - and I invite Amaltheus to reconsider it, looking at the article itself and setting aside any sense of hurt arising from the perceived attitudes of other editors. Snalwibma (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)"

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)