User talk:Kehrli

Hi Kehrli, I will support you in the argument that m/z is not unitless, because it clearly is not. People claiming that it is are apparently using a stupid trick whereby they divide the mass and the charge by 1 Dalton and the elementary charge to form supposedly unitless quantities. Idiocy. In that case, we can make anything unitless. Like, we can make my heaight to mass ratio unitless by dividing my mass by 1 kg, and my height by 1 m. What does it accomplish? Nothing. I agree with you 100%. Spectrometrists seem to have had a hard time with units over the decades, inventing such perverse things as the "wavenumber," (cm -1 ), so this doesn't surprise me that much. Ed Sanville 23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

m/z
Yo. My name's Corbin. I understand your frustration. Listen, the guys at WikiProject Physics might be able to help you out with reforming the concensus on this particular scientific unit. Leave a note on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, and see if anybody's interested. We have rules here, and they can be a royal pain in the ass sometimes (not unlike Imperial Standard), but as a community we try to be constructive, not destructive. You have a username and you know what you're talking about in terms of knowledge. You can be a part of this grand experiment in creating a commonwealth of information. Drop me a line at User talk:CorbinSimpson if you need help, okay? Happy editing! - Corbin Simpson 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Ed, Corbin, thank you guys for your support. In some way this is really frustrating, but in another way this is a very exciting social experiment. Look at it this way: we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists). If this is so hard, how can you ever hope to fight other misconceptions that can not analyticaly be proven (e.g. in politics) to common people that are not experts in the field? It is kind of frightning. Kehrli 14:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I voted "delete" on your article
Hi Kehrli, I noticed you apparently singled me out in your criticism of the deletion votes on your article. I can understand your frustration, and I will readily admit that I'm every bit as ignorant of this field as you thought I was.

My own (and I suppose many of the other voters') only reason for opposing this article has been the idea that Wikipedia should not be seen to advocate one thought over another, even if we have knowledgable editors here who are very certain that this thought is correct. Our policy on "Original research" states explicitly:

"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:


 * it introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * it introduces original ideas;
 * it defines new terms;
 * it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

Now, you yourself say above that "we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists)" - which seems to indicate the idea you are promoting is not commonly accepted knowledge among a significant part of the scientific community. In which case, Wikipedia is not the vehicle to tell these guys what to do and what not to do.

I think nobody would have a problem if you wrote something along the lines of "Many practicioners of mass spectrometry use the unit m/z; however, many other physicists have argued that this is incorrect, and that m/q should be used instead, for the following reasons..." That would certainly be useful addition. It would of course also be a matter of fairness to add why those other guys prefer m/z - surely, they must have some reason for doing so? --Lukas (T. 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on Thomson (unit)
Just wanted to stop by and say that you did a fairly good job on Thomson (unit). It is still a little confusing but I think it isn't too misleading or incorrect. It isn't too much of a leap for the reader to figure things out given teh example. Congrats. One bit of criticism: your PDF link is to Groucho Marx?--Nick Y. 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. The article was on Kmurrays web site and he changed it into a Grucho Marx picture. Nice joke!

Mass Spectrum
I would like to invite you to discuss your totally disputed tag on Mass spectrum. Thank you for finding any errors, however you need to point them out for me to be able to correct them. I would remind you again that if you can not backup your claims with specific uses of m/q (Th) in the scientific literature within the context of mass spectrometry it will go nowhere. Please I am waiting for your sources not your interpretation of guidance documents and novel suggestions of what is the best path forward for the greater scientific community. Please act in good faith under the policies of wikipedia. Please stop removing my disputed tags on Thomson (unit) related articles. I am acting in good faith by not editing them but simply waiting for your sources and noting that it is in dispute. I very seriously dispute the content of those articles and have yet to see new sources added and those that are there contradict the content of the article. I have been very patient. I will not engage in an argument with you. Cite your sources and I will cite mine.--Nick Y. 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Please visit Requests_for_arbitration and participate in our new binding arbitration proceedings regarding Thomson (unit), Mass-to-charge ratio, Mass spectrum and your behavior of removing dipute tags without stating a reason. See you there.--Nick Y. 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on template use
Please do not post warnings for vandalism on Nick Y.'s userpage. I do not believe he has engaged in any sort of vandalism. Rather, from what I have seen in RFA, there appears to be a content dispute.Aranherunar 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Aranherunar, I did not like to place this warning.  Unfortunately I was forced to place it.  By Nick and his disturbing behaviour. Here is a short list of what he did:
 * Nick himself thinks this is no longer a content dispute and therefore requested RFA.
 * Prior to this he requested a mediation which went quite well and we found strict rules for a truce. (I would leave alone his mass spectra article and he would leave alone the mass-to-charge ratio article.
 * However, soon afterwards he engaged in a request for deletion of the mass-to-charge ratio article, thereby breaking the truce.
 * Also, he repetedly placed tags on pages without giving reasons why.
 * After I changed the article according to his wishes he still placed the tags
 * When asked for references to prove his ideas to be in line with international conventions in ISO 31 he did not reply but just showed examples of old literature using outdated notations.
 * regarding the disruptive behaviour of Nick and his constant pushing of minority POV I would say the line between vandalism and content dispute (he no longer uses arguments to prove his case, he just uses lobbying) is very blurred.
 * What would you recommend I should do?   --Kehrli 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody forced you to do anything. You can do whatever you like, and the only thing to keep in mind is follow the rules. Putting a warning is to remind the user not to do something that breaks the rule - which is of no value if you are "forced to do it". Moreover, I think you have a major misunderstanding of what Vandalism is. Vandalism is, from WP:VANDAL, "any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Filing a RFA is absolutely not vandalism, and your warning template in his user talkpage is a misuse. You can simply keep your head cool, read more about the rules, and be nice. Wikipedians here generally give people a lot of chances. Good luck. Aranherunar 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Nick should be blocked from editing any mass spectrometer articles as long as he does not keep to the rules of our truce, as long as he continuously placed tags without giving reasons why, and as long as he places RAF against me only because I edit according to the terms established in the IUPAC green book. As far as I understand the Wikipedia rules, the only way I can ask for his blocking is to place those warnings first, even though I don't really want to.  What would you do in my place??  --Kehrli 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let others, more experienced users decide for you. Since he has filed a RFA there would be plenty of people that has the ability to resolve the dispute. Personally I don't think he deserves to be blocked or warned, and your warning template was terribly misused, because the person has not in any way engaged in any vandalism. If what you said was accurate, he has only been in an edit war, and will be treated as such. Filing a RFA does not in any way breaks Wikipedia rules - it is the process of trying to secure it. If the RFA is wrong, it would be rejected, and you would not be in any way harmed. I do not know how you have personally been offended, but warning him for something he did not do, i.e. Vandalism (see WP:VANDAL for an explanation of what is Vandalism), is not the right way to solve the problem. I do not know much about the content dispute you two are getting into; if I were you, I would keep calm and let the things cool down, and try to hear what others are saying, because most of the times the problem is a major misunderstanding (I would suggest you to read more about Wikipedia Policies in this case because you seem to have misunderstood some important points). Actually, I believe it is you, not him, who actually broke the rules so far, but that is hardly relevant to what I am saying. Having a content dispute and being in an edit war does not justify the use of the vandalism warning, and, again, if it is deserved, it will be put there by other users. Aranherunar 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, you did persuad me. I did remove the warnings and wait for the arbitration. Could you please give me a hint where I broke the rules? --Kehrli 18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, this, a very, very long edit war and very close to breaking the 3RR for both of you (You have made 3 reverts on 22nd July, 3 reverts from 1st to 2nd August in less than 24 hours, etc.). These edit wars generally do not help anyone, and even if you did not break the 3RR, in " severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may be subject to arbitration." (from WP:EW). I see nearly 15 removals of the "Disputed" tag - which is a very unneeded editing war, in my opinion, because it really isn't that important, because, since you are edit warring, the matter is obviously not settled, and putting a tag up there helps. The edit war is not needed. If Nick broke your "truce", let him break it, and talk with him about it. Don't go to the article and start editing again, because it only makes matters worse. I'm going to drop this matter and let more experienced users do their job. Goodbye. Aranherunar 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

physical quantities, dimension, and measurement
you made some recent edits to Physical constant that appears to be based on the same kind of issue you have with mass spectrometry and dimension. may i suggest that you take a look at natural units, planck units, nondimensionalization and some of the lit in physics about this. just as when one counts tick marks (a dimensionless number) on a ruler when they measure length, when we use any measuring instrument to read a physical quantity it was designed for results in a fundamentally dimensionless number. it's in the interpretation of that reading and knowledge of what it uses as a standard to measure the physical quantity, that we attach units to the reading. r b-j 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i moved it back to your talk page, since it started here. the simplest thing is to respond here.  i have now clicked the watch flag for this page.  but, i would recommend that the rest of the discussion go to the Talk:Physical constant page.


 * Rbj, I agree with Ed and I think you changed back for worse the article of Physical constant. Please read Talk:Physical_constant for a more detailed explanation. Please think about it and let me know your conclusions.    --Kehrli 10:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * well, if you look at Ed's page where we had the discussion, i think you'll see with this edit that he doesn't agree with you about this and that his and my disagreement became one of semantics and convention. but the edits you did to Physical constant are about substantive understanding of physics, not mere semantics and convention.  i'm gonna take the rest of this to the Talk:Physical constant page because it's about that.  give it an hour, i'll have some response/information for you. r b-j 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Kehrli.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kehrli, I blocked you for 24 hours for violating the article ban by editing Mass-to-charge ratio and M/z . During the time of this block you should not edit any part of Wikipedia. FloNight 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kehrli/mz misconception
User:Kehrli/mz misconception, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kehrli/mz misconception and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Kehrli/mz misconception during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kkmurray 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Kehrli for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Kkmurray (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z)
User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article links: User:Kehrli/alpha User:Kehrli/mz --Kkmurray (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kendrick unit


The article Kendrick unit has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Possibly a WP:HOAX, as this gets no relevant mentions on Google Scholar or Google Books, whereas "The Matt Kendrick Unit" is a band. If not a hoax, then it is a non-notable idea of a non-notable chemist.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge discussion here and here. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by the term "base units"?
Hi Kehrli, I don't want to get into a content dispute with you or anyone else. I can read here that you have a history of changing content in such a way that you sincerely believe is more correct, but is sometimes disputed (and reverted) by others.

My understanding of the meaning and usage of the term "base units" is that these are the units defined first (chronologically or pedagogically) and get established first and then the derived units come later. I also can understand that different systems of units can have different sets of base units. And there is no real consistency. For example, in SI, the unit speed is not a identified as a base unit even though, essentially SI defines the unit speed first (as c/299792458) and then the unit length is defined from that and the definition of unit time. But SI identifies the unit length to be a base unit, not the unit speed. But on the other hand, SI defines the unit current to be "base" and from that (and the definition of unit time) the unit charge is derived. But most of us are convinced that electric charge is the more fundamental physical quantity and that electric current follows conceptually as charge per unit time.

And the (again) the problem is for different systems natural units, that different quantities (universal and non-dimensionless physical constants) are chosen to define each system, yet, for comparison, the same "base units" are defined in each system so that they can be directly compared.

Now, I am not sure what should be done with the semantics here, but I think we better stick with the convention of base units vs. derived units. Although I understand precisely what you are trying to say. So I plan to change (not just revert) some of what you wrote in Natural units. But I hope to illustrate the point you made. Stay tuned. 71.169.191.235 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kehrli new POV dispute
I received the following note on my user talk page:

You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the discussion regarding this matter. As is to be expected, I understand little or nothing of it, but do know that Wikipedia needs to use standard notation. Please identify what notation is currently being used and use that notation. If a new notation is coming into use that is significant and perhaps could be included in the appropriate article. Fred Talk 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fred: we all agree that Wikipedia needs to use "standard notation". We just do not agree what standard notation means.
 * In my opinion "standard notation" means the consensus notation established by the Physicist IUPAP red book, the Chemists IUPAC green book, the International Standard Organization ISO 31, and the standards of the specialists in metrology (= the scientist that study measurment in general) which you find in the International vocabulary of metrology.
 * In the opinion of Nick and Kermit "standard notation" is the jargon that is used by some people (not by all people) in their narrow field of science, mass spectrometry and that will not be understood by the wider public because it is so much "off the road".
 * Kehrli (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What needs to be spelled out here for Fred is that the "notation" or "units" in question "Ke" as defined by Kehrli have been used exactly once in the primary literature, if that. There are many other similar uses but none of it is standard. It's actual use is, similar to how Kehrli describes it, sloppy, jargony and variable between sources. The dispute is whether we should summarize and report this "as is" or if we should improve this situation and correct the inconsistencies between this jargon and standards to synthesize a "correct" usage and definition consistent with the more general rules in Wikipedia space.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Kehrli is using his interpretation of the tertiary sources IUPAP red book/IUPAC green book/ISO 31 to justify rejecting all of the scientific literature on Kendrick mass (dozens of publications in the past decade).The standard notation is Kendrick mass = observed mass x (nominal mass/exact mass).10.1021/ac034415p Kendrick mass has the same units as the observed mass, no new unit of mass has been defined or needs to be defined. The new unit of mass that Kehrli has defined is original research and inconsistent with multiple verifiable sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fred: don't believe Kkmurray a word. The "dozens" publications he mentions all use a DIFFERENT terminology that contradicts each other. What is more important: they contradict the consensus on scientific terminology and in some cases they contradict simple math. I can prove it. I looked up the reference that Kkmurray quoted above.
 * Formula as claimed by Kkmurray : Kendrick mass = observed mass x (nominal mass/exact mass)
 * Formula I actually found: Kendrick mass (F) = observed mass x [(nominal mass of F)/(exact mass of F)]
 * Every child can see that these are not the same formulas. And both formulas are wrong when reading them according to the rules of the scientific consensus. It is exactly as Nick says: all papers are written sloppy, jargony and terminology varies between sources. In order for a wider public to understand this article, it must be written according to the consensus on scientific terminology instead of the insider jargon that is not understandable by the broader public. Thanks god there are papers that actually use the correct terminology. We should just use the language of those. This is not OR as Kkmurray falsely claims. Kehrli (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Kehrli
A request to amend has been filed at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment --Kkmurray (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been declined. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli.
 * On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Kendrick mass
Please participate at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick mass --Kkmurray (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My house burned down
I have 0 fans left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson Collie (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick mass Mediation Cabal Case
Hello! I have volunteered to help mediate the conflict over the Kendrick mass article. Would you be accepting of this mediation process opening at this time? Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would invite you to the talk page of the mediation page where the earlier discussion already occurred. Each party has made brief statements to aid me in helping you. I ask that you please write a statement as well, discussing possible places of compromise and what you believe is the focal question of the dispute. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted opening questions for discussion on the talk page. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted a compromise proposal on the bottom of the mediation page. I hope you will look through the proposal and consider it for your approval. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli 2
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Kkmurray (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli 2 opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I have posted my evidence here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2/Evidence --Kkmurray (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice regarding ArbCom case
Diffs are useful in backing up your points. NW ( Talk ) 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits at Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio
I reverted your recent edits. I don't think that any of the parties in arbitration (myself included) should make edits on mass and unit articles while the case is open. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can comment here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2/Workshop --Kkmurray (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions 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. ''Please stop canvassing and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. Everything you post or say may be used against you in the arbitration.'' PaoloNapolitano (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed
An arbitration case regarding has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted: On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.


 * Please do not edit case pages again now that they are closed. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your ban
First off, it's not an "unlimited" ban. You're restricted from metrology-related articles and their talk pages, not from unrelated fields. It is indefinite, in that the ban will only be rescinded after an appeal, and an appeal will only be successful if you demonstrate you've learn from your previous behavior and show evidence of good editing outside the realm of the conflict.

As to the evidence, the finding of fact is drawn from the evidence page and the related discussions, e.g.,, which I and the other arbs unanimously found that you distorted, selected, or combined evidence to suit your own view about Kendrick mass units, and that you were tendentiously editing to assert that view. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you did not source your assertions. Rather that you were using sources, for example, that did not expressly define kendrick mass as supporting it because you felt there was no other realm of interpretation available. ArbCom doesn't get involved in the actual content, but conduct. I think you have some valid concerns about accessibility of science articles, however your editing patterns and accusations were disruptive. I still do not think that you will have any issues editing other articles because we're not out to "get" you; however if you feel strongly that every branch of science is off-limits you can file a request for amendment of that remedy to be more clear in what areas you are prohibited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You fought to make your preferred views on kendrick units standard in the articles, even when other editors expressed concerns that you were not following WP:UNDUE. You expressed a die-hard view that your proffered side was the "best", and you consistently combined oblique references from standards books in a way not expressly stated in those books to support your assertion that kendrick units were the ones to use. You displayed ownership of articles. You refused to accept any culpability or errors in past action.
 * In short: hey, you might be right about the whole kendrick thing. But you were incredibly disruptive and tendentious in all your actions. I really do not have anything further to add. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence is in the case pages and the linked evidence. The ultimate difference here is you don't believe that you gave some sources undue precedence; it's interpretation of what's there. I really don't have much else to add. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement --Kkmurray (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The admins who looked into this complaint agree that you violated your topic ban from metrology. A warning is being logged in the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2. Be careful to stay away from metrology topics in your future editing. If not, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)