User talk:Dominic/Archive7

Stress level
You wouldn't ask that if you've been involved in the Big Daddy case. :) In a little over 5 weeks of posts, he's gotten himself into arbitration. He's now deleting any criticism on site from his talk page...yadda yadda. We're up over 200 pieces of evidence and we're not done yet. --Woohookitty 06:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! I needed that laugh. --Woohookitty 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're a true sweetheart. Thank you. Well he has no chance in heck and he exacerbates it daily by adding more and more to the evidence page. But yeah, from some of the comments one of the arbitrators made, I don't think he has long for this wiki. :) --Woohookitty 06:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing that will stop him will be a strait jacket and the guys in the little suits. lol Seriously, we should probably propose that. --Woohookitty 07:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I put it up for a vote.

I have no clue why I hadn't thought of that. --Woohookitty 08:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you vandalized the VfD for totalitarian dictators page
Perhaps you are off of your indefinite wiki vacation?--Silverback 06:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks for reminding me, I had only taken the notice off of my talk page. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
My thanks go out to you for your support on my adminship nomination. I will try very hard to maintain your satisfaction. Denelson83 21:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, H e rmione1980 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gurkha
I hope you can help me, I saw the Rajput article go to hell and now see that it has fallen beoynd any academic standard and would not hold up in a debate at a university level. However, nothing I can do there, it seems it has been hijacked for political reasons.

The Gurkha article, thats very personal since the history begins with my ancestor Kabhoj. Now I wrote it but have seen people edit sections out without realising that what I have stated is history, it was never refuted in the University because first it was fact, second I was an a real descendant who even today is in very close contact with the roytal house of Mewar and Nepal because they are my cousins.

Someone had the nerve to place a NPOV, which I immediately removed, since it alarmed me that there is a political agenda happening here where people who do not have a clue about the subject matter, and yet wish to gear it towards what they wish to hear and thus use the "Neutrality" clause as a weapon.

I would have thought that Wikipedia would love to have someone who is known as a expert in the history and lifestyle of he Nepalese Gurkha to give you the honest account, however now I feel this place is being taken over by bullies. In case you need to cross reference who I am, you can do so by contacting Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, South Asian Studies Department, or even Dr. Diana Eck at Harvard University. Retired General Narendra Singh, Gurkha Rifles, former ADC to Lord Mountbatten, he is my cousin. I could go on and give references but what I am asking is for your assistance in not allowing for this article to go to hell. If I can't do anything to save it, then I would prefer to remove everything I wrote along with my name and Dr. O'Connell's name and revert the history section back to its inaccurate form as when I had found it the first time.

I hope you can help since I am very computer illiterate.

Sincerely, Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 11:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply
Dear Dmcdevit,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am not sure if I did it properly but I cited a list of references since someone put a request for citations. I would appreciate if you could assist me in this issue of protecting the history so that it remains authentic. You can also see my retorts on the discussion page.

I have also thoughtof contacting my cousins in the Embassy if the article misrepresents the Gurkha history in any way by someone vandalising it. I really do appreciate your kind words and advice. I saw the Rajput article go down in flames and hijacked for a political agenda with the introduction now being completely incorrect, since anyone in South Asian Studies can tell you that this is not how it is seen or practiced in India, Nepal or among Rajputs.

I know I cannot do anything there, but here in the Gurkha article I can since I am known and can easily contact the Royal family of Nepal (my cousins). I have even given Dr. O'Connell's contact info if anyone needs to discuss the matter and my authenticity. I just thought I would shed some light on the article and give information that would be helpful.

I saw it vandalised in the past but simply reverted it back to what I had written. However, now I am seeing some new names and attempts to change the article and perhaps gear to a "politically correct" version at the expense of academic freedom and truth. In the same light if we were to one day filter the atrocities of the holocaust of WW2, then what would we be left with in terms of history.

Seeing how this article is showing signs of being invaded, I have decided not to post scan pictures and archival material of the Gurkhas in an environment that can be misused against my people.

Again, I thank you for your prompt reply and kind words and honestly request that you and other editors and administration help me protect this one article from being hijacked and maintian its authenticity as well as its academic level. This article which is so sacred because it is my family.

Please feel free to show my request to any other admins or editors, which you feel may help me.

Sincerely, Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

About the Rajputs
I had no idea you were the one to block and protect it from further hijacking. Honestly, I sincere gratitude in what you have done. Below I am including a letter I had written to another individual about the situation of the Rajput article. Honestly, you have done something that has restored some hope that something can be done for Wikipedia. Here was my letter:

Dear Goethean,

Although I understand that you are trying to mediate the situation on the Rajput article, but talking academically, it has gone to the flames.

I followed the discussion for some time, but I saw how one side was just arguing while one side was trying to cite evidence. Although, Shivraj was not the most elegant or articulate of debaters, however neither were the other boys, they never cited any references, not one.

In a South Asian Studies environment, the sentence “Rajputs are followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism.” This statement would never hold up since there is a lack of understanding what is a Jati, Caste and Varna system is.

I did my thesis on Rajputs for graduate studies at the University of Toronto, under the fmaous Harvard Professor for Indian and Hindu Studies, Dr. Joseph T. O’Connell, whom I am still in touch with today. However I als did my thesis on the Rajputs because I happen to be one. When I showed this discussion page to some of my colleagues who happen to be Paksitani and Muslim, they ridiculed it since even they clearly stated the Islam does not recognise Hindu castes. I don’t take offence to it, since it makes sense, these are two distint cultures.

It brings to mind the article : The Origins of Our Caste System in Vedic Times - Brahmins By Sudheer Birodkar:

“Caste is an institution which is truely Hindu (Indian) in character. So much so that even the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as, Hindu hereditary class, with members socially equal, united in religion, and usually following same trades, having no social intercourse with persons of other castes. The word caste itself is derived from the Portuguese word 'Casta' which means pure or chaste. In the Indian lexion we refer to caste by the words 'Varna' meaning colour and 'Jati' which is derived from the root syllable 'Ja' which means 'to be born'. But why does the caste system that prevails mainly among the Hindus, also exists in a subconscious manner amongst Muslims in India (Pakistan and Bangla Desh) as also among the Christians and Sikhs in India?”…….. http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/castevedic.html

Also: Islam And Caste Inequality Among Indian Muslims By Yoginder Sikand countercurrents.org 15 February, 200 http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand150204.htm

The claims and arguments presented in the discussion by the other side were not only weak, but at many times insulting. Also, never were references cited, no academic works etc. Honestly, this definition would not hold against any criticism in an academic environment or debate. I am simply being honest.

The Caste system was such that if a Rajput did something that was dishonourable, he could loose his status and become a Jat (Dhillon, B.S. (1994), `History and Study of the Jats', Beta Publishers Inc., Ottawa, Canada, I also happen to know this author while doing research at the University of Toronto for Indian studies). Thus Jats are defined into two terms, Asal Jats and non-Asal Jats. Non-asal Jats may be descended from Rajputs who lost their Jati. If a Rajput converted, he was considered an outcaste. References of Kings losing their Jati or Caste can even be seen in the Srimad Bhagvatam an example of this being during the story of Vishwamitra where Vishwamitra elevated himself to Brahm-Rishi from being a Raj-Rishi, also a certain king had become a Chandal due to a curse and therefore an outcaste, Vishwamitra preformed sacrifices to allow him to still enter heaven. Anyways, that is a bit off topic but a good example.

This group also made erroneous claims about Rajput history, even to the point that Wikipedia is the only source in the world that claims Jodhabai being a Janjua Rajput, when the rest of the world and history books all state that she was a princess of Jaipur, sister of Man Singh, and married to Akbar. The rulers of Jaipur trace their ancestry from Kush the son of Ram and are the head of the clan known as Kachawas. You can also see the references by the family themselves: http://www.royalfamilyjaipur.com/j_rul.htm or for a referemce to who Jodhabai was you can even see it here http://www.4to40.com/discoverindia/places/index.asp?article=discoverindia_places_jaipur

I find it incredible that the ones who yell the loudest get there way on Wikipedia. This article has only shown that and also that the claims for Encyclopedia standard and academic standard are not enforced and simply are lip service. I am honestly concerned. If this had been a site which was completely in control of the Pakistanis, then I could understand. However, if this site was in control of Arab or Iranian Muslims or a Secular Western Academic authors, then I would expect for some level of honesty and respect to another person’s culture.

The argument began because Muslims were not being recognized as Rajputs. Everyone knows that there are Muslims that may be descended from Rajputs since it took place in History, however to claim to be one and be descended from one are two different things. Being a Rajput requires religious obligations and rites demanded by Hinduism.

The Phulkian states of the Sikh aristocracy also claim Rajput ancestry and in doing so have built numerous Hindu temples which can be seen today, not just in Punjab but extending all the way into Jahri Pani, Tehri Garhwal. However, even if the academic world recognizes who I am and my links with the Sikh families in question (since we are talking about blood ties and family) the other side simply would try to use the Sikhs as an example without any consideration in understanding the dynamics, history or culture of the Sikhs. They obviously never read the Pakistani publication,

"The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, the great grandson of Fakeer Azizuddin, Maharaja's Foreign  Minister.

Neither have they read “A matter of Honour; An Account of the [British] Indian Army, Its officer and Men” by Philip Mason isbn:0333-41837-9

“Armies of the Raj” by Byron Farwell ISBN 0-393-30802-2

Even during recruitment, the British looked at the Muslim Rajputs as an inferior breed since they were seen as not having the same stock or fighting spirit as the Hindu or Sikh Rajputs. These are not my words, its in “A Matter of Honour…”isbn:0333418369

Although I understand that Shivraj became a bit too passionate during the argument, he made more sense than the others who argued against him. They were simply playing a very political and dirty game, it is sad they could not have been brought into a formal debate at a University.

And yet, simply screaming and being insulting while making erroneous claims like a couple of teenagers, they got their way and the Rajput article has been brought to the depths of being nothing more than a politically geared article at the expense of Academic freedom, integrity and knowledge.

I write to you because I know you will understand, however, I don’t expect anything good will come out from this article.

Thank you for taking the time to read about my concern.

Gorkhali 10:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

About Gurkha
Hello, I received your message about Gurkha. Although I have once visited [Nepal]], and have seen many Gurkha people even in India including some who have been working in our organisation, I do not have much knowledge about them. Nevertheless, I am sure to spot irrelevant contents, if any, in the article - I will try to filter out POVs and place my opinion on the talk page of the article. However, it may take few days. I hope to interact more with you on this matter as also on others. Regards. --Bhadani 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation
This is just a hey, I appreciate your effort. And on that front, I poked the other users talk pages to try and get them to come fill out the questions you put up last week.

And your spot on that Tony deserves a thank you. SchmuckyTheCat 21:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

About Rajput article
Dear Dmcdevit,

I received some messages from some of the individuals who were hijacking the Rajput article. It does not seem as if they will refrain, they are just waiting for the article to be unblocked. I was also following the Rajput websites and it seems that the "Wikipedia" issue is coming up and touching a nerve since the article was being geared towards a political agenda. Thank you again for your swift response and concern.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. &rarr;Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Boothy
Thanks. He said he had a problem with my answers and I just wanted to know what since I meet that 2,500 edits, 3-6 months he put on someone's talk page. Well, I suppose if it's just a dislike of admins then I'm getting even worse by trying this. Thanks again. gren グレン 10:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao on lists by country
Please kindly note I have started a new section for Hong Kong on the list of road-rail bridges. &mdash; Instantnood 20:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Another section has been started for Macao . &mdash; Instantnood 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I added more Chinese bridges SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I've edited it too, and I'll dutifully report it here. :) Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput
Some muslim users were constantly reverting my edits on rajput page. Then I requested the page be protected and also asked these users to provide evidence for there edits. It has been close to 48 hours and they have chosen to not provide any evidence. So what should be assumed in such a circumstance?

-Shivraj Singh

Hey.
I've apologised to Tony for my petty behavior vandalism. If there is anything that I can do to regain the trust I've lost, please let me know. brenneman (t) (c) 07:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I am trying tried to stay clear of the RfC, and the little bit I have stuck in I hope will prove healthy, as opposed to just making more spite.  But that's not why I'm here.  I'm here to talk about...

Transwiki
Ok, I'm a sucker for things that need done. That's how I got involved in deletion politics in the first place, for the backlog. I'm pretty unclear on some of it (corn soup?), but I'm sure I'll figure it out. So count me in. brenneman (t) (c) 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for your support. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 11:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you even more for pointing out the status of certain users who don't have a very good record of wikipedia policy. :) Thank you -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! By the way, you're not the only admin in Arizona anymore... :) Tito xd (?!?) 17:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Death
Re your comments on the talk page. I reverted back to the 34 million because I think a number is important for a reader who has no idea of the base population of Europe at the time. Numbers project the reality of the massive death toll more than percentages. Historical numbers are always suspect, subject to debate, and estimates at best. I suspect the 34 million is a quote/reference in an early version of the article. However, it wouldn't hurt to try and come up with a list of estimates and refine our figure. We could put in a low to high range.

I will try and go through my library in the next couple of weeks and see what estimates are available. Why don't you guys do the same. I have a couple of relatively current books -- but modern estimates are always based on the primary documents. During my academic lifetime at least, opinions have swung widely --- from "they were all exaggerated" to "accept their accounts without question." Since English speakers more readily access English primary documents, many estimates are based on the English experience, which most historians agree was higher than 30 percent. Areas in Eastern Europe had so few plague accounts that their information is usually not included. Outside of Europe, Middle Eastern and Asian sources are even harder to deal with. All these things make the process a frustrating one. But, please don't take my revert personally. WBardwin 03:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput
Hi there. I believe that it was you who protected the Rajput article. In the pursuit of resolution of the dispute, I would like to add some text to the article. Unfortunately, it has not been approved by all parties, but nonetheless, here it is:

Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.

This would replace the last sentence of the "Definition" section. Unfortunately, at this point, we don't have citations to back up the attributions. Thanks! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User Goethean has no evidence for any of the edits he and his buddies have made on rajput wikipedia in the last 10 days or so. I have repeatedly asked them for evidence and none is forthcoming. They are just pushing there beliefs and POV's. Eminent historians like James Tod/ Prof Dashratha Sharma/ Dr LS Rathore is what I have cited in my edits. These guys have reverted the edits but on being asked to provide evidence they have chose to remain silent for a week now. Though they have been very vocal in an attempt to diver the discussion away from the topic of providing evidence to support there claims. Please see the discussion page on rajputs and the heading "Talk Facts".

No hindu rajput agrees with the definition that Goethean is asking you to push onto Rajput page. He has some kind of political/religious agenda biased in favor of Islam.

I have tried to discuss on the talk page because some muslim users were constantly reverting my edits on rajput page. Then I requested the page be protected and also asked these users to provide evidence for there edits. It has been close to a week and they have chosen to not provide any evidence. So what should be assumed in such a circumstance?

The books from which this article is formed are very welll researched books on rajput history written by eminent historians. No one, even on rajput discussion page has provided a single counter evidence to what is written by the following authors.

James Tod did more then 20 years of research when he was living in Rajasthan in 1800's and then published the momentous "Annals and Antiquities of ancient Rajasthan". This is the only book which covers in great detail the history of rajputs. Before him and since him such a comprehensive book has not been published.

Other books I cited were by Professor Dashratha Sharma who took into account quite a few stone writings of various chauhan kings throughout there dominion and also took into account numismatics and the history works written in native Indian languages by the authors of that era. e.g Prithvirajvijay, Hammir MahaKavya etc.

Third book is by an existing professor at Jodhpur university who spent a lot of time researching the Indian works on the life of Hammir and then published has work in English.

These authors are not known to westerners who any way tend to rely more on muslim historians who tend to be very biased towards there kings.

On the rajput discussion page I pointed out how biased muslim historians are even today. MJ Akbar who is a very educated man and a journalist from India published a book recently called "shades of swords" in which he lists the wars of muslim kings but completely glosses over the severe defeats Ghori suffered in Gujarat in 1178 at Kayadara and later at Taraori in Haryana in 1191. And there are many more omissions.

Reason we have so much acrimony because muslims have been fed one version of the history by there historians in which there kings are shown as superhumans and rajput kings were shown as pushovers. Reality is far too different as many historians have pointed out. I presented a complete bibliography which they have managed to delete also. (I am in the process of collecting the publishers etc for these books in the bibliography. I am travelling and am away from my library but I will gather all the info by COB friday).

Alo user Goethean is an extremely biased hindu hater. Here is an example:

Gothean has been selectively removing hindu responses from the wiki talkpage on rajputs. He is calling himself a moderator but I let the post from raja(who happens to be a muslim), where he talks about insecurity of faith, sit there on the talk page for more then 24 hours. Goethean was nowhere to be found. Then someone called me a moron and Goethean was still on snooze. Finally I responded to raja and then Gothean woke up instantaneously and started deleting stuff. When I ask him to explain this duplicity in behavior he remains silent. See the difff below. Raja is a muslim user who made an assertion on insecurity of faith and then I responded.

1. cur) (last) 18:55, 26 October 2005 203.101.51.164 (→Talk facts)  2. (cur) (last) 17:56, 26 October 2005 Goethean (→Hindu Rajputs)

-Shivraj


 * Shivraj, having looked at your edits and your contributions to the talk page, I must say that Goethean's version of things is less POV, less Hindutva, and more historically accurate. And no, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist (which would make me a Hindu by some Hindutva definitions). Zora 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput
I've put the article on my watchlist, but I'm not sure that I'll have the time or energy to get involved. I'm supposed to be writing a history of the Islamic conquest of Iran.

Sometimes being a Wikipedia editor feels like writing one term paper after another.

I've also called it "editing as a blood sport". Zora 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While you are researching this topic here is a pop quiz for you: 1) Why did Islam completely dominate Iran/Iraq/Egypt/Saudi i.e the population in these regions is 99% islamic today. 2) Why did the same not happen in India?


 * --Shivraj Singh 12:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

/Workshop
You can make proposals on the /Workshop page as well as comment on them. I'll look at editing on both articles and think about injunctions. Fred Bauder 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost RfA thanks
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Another question on "Conspiracy theory" block
I just read Probation and it occurred to me that Conspiracy theory was not the subject of my arbitration case. How is Conspiracy theory applicable to probation for race and intelligence or is my probation blanket? zen master T 18:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You really consider a month long page edit block as being appropriate as well? What of the underlying context of the dispute(s)? zen master T 18:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Dint know you celebrate Deepavali, but thanks so much for the move at Current events in Malaysia and Singapore. ;}--Huaiwei 12:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How's that for "notoriously slow"? Dmcdevit·t 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer edits today
Since you feel I should be included in the temp ban on Freemasonry articles, can you go revert Lightbringer's changes to Taxil hoax and Freemasonry? The diffs for where he started editing are at and  (SarekofVulcan)
 * Done. Dmcdevit·t 18:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Gracias.--SarekOfVulcan 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

re:Edit warring
First off i am well aware of policy, buat as is the case with you self any most admins, you fail to to eith have done your reasearch fully or to find out exactly what is going on, but instead have decided to inject the defacto and unwritten policy of appeasment, which for an encyclopedia is unacceptable. As for the useres action, i do take them as vandalism under the provisons of Childish vandalism, in thathis edits only are ment to remove articles from categories thus blanking them, and Attention-seeking vandalism, in orrder to seek to bring attention by other pov warriors to join his side, as well as Redirect vandalism. The user has now since decided to edit under an anon 172.156.2.190 (talk &bull; contribs), in which he has nw used edit summries to to justfiy his vandalism, all of which i have reverted. Now i see the missresprsenting and addation of misleading information in lue of the facts that have been presented to the user to be vandalism, theirfor i will treat them as vandalism, and if you see fit to blcok me then so be it, but be sure that after the block has expired, if that it is still misleading and misrepreseative, i will change it agian. I am not here to make friends or to have wikilove or be part of theis community experiment that you downplay, i am here to present information. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood mediation
I gather you're helping mediate some matters involving Instantnood. Do the following, concerning IN's proposal, counter-consensus creation, reversion, and opposition of the renaming of Macao-stub fall within its "parameters", or close enough to be worth your while to help deal with it? Alai 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the mediation is still alive right now. If it were, that would certainly be a part of it. We'll have to see. As an unrelated matter, though, if you believe it was created against consensus, you should put it up for deletion. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, though IN insisted that it, and the ArbCom case, were "not related". It's indeed up for deletion, see the second link, above.  (I say "renaming", though with categories they in effect have to be re-created under a different name, and then deleted.  It'd be OK as "Macau" -stub (and category, and text, and links..).)  If this mediation resumes, then firstly, good luck!  Looks like you may need it.  And secondly, can you let me know?  As things stand, I may just leave a note on the talk page of the ArbCom (too late to add additional evidence, I think).  Alai 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think Maca(o/u) was part of the Arb case other than the behavior that caused both. Not that it matters. I'll keep you informed if anything happens. You may be interested to know that I asked thh arbs to finalize the arbcom decision, and there's been a few votes in the last few days. I think the probation will happen soon. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not Maca* specifically, but the remedies on the table would seem to be scoped in such as way as to cover such instances. But I'll probably just keep my nose out, at this late stage.  Cheers.  Alai 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheeky Monkey
You've pre-empted my thanks. I was saving you a bit, because it was clear that you'd had a bit of trouble with what to say. So, I apologise for those actions that gave you pause. I do swear to go forth and try to sin no more. I'll make even more effort to stop saying nasty things to he-who-gets-my-goat-because-he-reminds-me-so-much-of-me. And I'll apply myself to WP:TL, although I have to admit I have developed an irrational fear of these innocent letters. If it's really so simple, why is the page so huge?

And, kidding aside, thank you. I'm listening. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Injunctions
''Hey Kelly, I thought I'd take this here so the ANI doesn't get more clogged than it already is. With regards to, I hadn't looked at the arb case, but I was talking in generalities. I'm interested in what you think on the general principle of protection vs. blocking (or injunction, as the case may be, same function). When I come across a request at WP:RFPP for protection of an article involved in an arb case, I always think that I would prefer the offending parties in an injunction than protect the article. The more common scenario is that I look for 3RR blocks to hand out (depending on the situation, obviously) rather than protect. Other admins take protection much more lightly (at least more lightly than protection). What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * In general I am reluctant to use protection because it locks out everyone, not just the edit warriors. That said, in this case virtually all edits to the article are by parties to the pending RfAr.  I freely admit that I'm not fond of 3RR (I think it has the effect of encouraging edit warring by giving the impression that one is entitled to 3 reverts a day, which is clearly not the intent of the rule).  If we weren't relatively close to a final decision in that case I would definitely entertain a preliminary injunction.  The other thing about this particular case is that the edit war is "low speed", typically one go-round a day, sometimes two; it has been rare if ever that it's reached the level of 3RR. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Chimera
Your reproof is well-taken.

What is the correct description and appeal for unexplained or (as in this case) falsely explained, removals? Surely this is, or should be, contrary to policy. (Please note the text I am defending is not mine; what I chiefly want is a justification; I might well agree with it if offered.) Septentrionalis 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Thanks for the feedback. I want to complain about someone who is contributing to a couple of articles, on what perhaps could be loosly called fringe science. I feel that their contribution is bordlerline scientifically neutral, but I feel it is not neutral from the point of view from an encyclopedic entry.

I have already implemented a request for discussion, but there have not been many contributions by third-party contributors.

It seems to me that any article on Wikipedia describes the subject from the point of view of the artcle title. It is not a scientific debate. Unfortunately it is a little technical, but a couple of quick examples.

On the Plasma cosmology page, there is an argument about a picture caption (first image, called M87's Energetic Jet); the Plasma Cosmology talk page provides lots of the detail. Originally the caption was quite short, and just summarised what the image was illustrating. But the caption has been changed to include a counterpoint, and judgement on the perspective given. I don't feel that a picture caption is the place for this. Likewise the article introduction has been changed from an explanation of Plasma Cosmology, to a discussion that includes various counterpoints. I have no objection to counterpoints in an article, but not in the introduction, and definitely not in a picture caption.

One other example. The article on Redshift, describes three examples of the cause of redshift. I've tried adding a 4th type calld the "Wolf Effect" which is not very well known, but it has been completely marginalised. I've also tried adding other types of "partial" redshifts, but these have also been removed. The argements can be seen on the Redshift talk page. I have references to peer reviewed papers indicating that the Wolf Effect can produce a redshift, and I've had emails from some of the authors confirming this. The Redshift article contributor disagrees (no evidence given) with me, with the information removed or marginalised. I have tried to expand the article to be inclusive of other kinds of redshift, acknowledging their limitations, but again, with no success.

Consquently I feel that the other contributor, while being almost scientifically neutral, are not being neutral and impartial from the point of view of the subject of the Wikipedia article in question, and are including counterpoints which should appear after the introduction, and after the subject has been described.

Two final points. Indication that the contributor was treating the Plasma Cosmology article unfairly was when they added the Pseudoscience category tag to the article. While the subject may be fringe, peer-reviewed articles on the subject appear in the IEEE, and scientist Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize for his work on plasma. Pseudoscience it is not.

On the 1st November 2005, the contributor mentioned towards the bottom of the [Talk:Plasma_cosmology|Plasma Cosmology talk] that "there is no reason to continue this discussion". --Iantresman 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)