User talk:Pgio

Yes, drop the use of a cat there, at least for now
Are you kidding me? I would love to drop the need for category all together from that article. Or file it Under Water Basket Weaving if they have to. It has absolutely no meaning to me, even if it had a category of "The Most Lock Solid Truths Of all The Universe".... (I still wouldn't base my "what's good science" meter on a category.)

What it has done, and I think we are perfectly phased on this, is that the category fixation has done nothing but seriously retard any, all for now, progress in building an article towards understanding. By intention (?), or buy the most unbelievable ignorance in "how to do science", the group of 'registered users' pushing ONLY a 'pseudo' label, are clearly STOPPING progress on that article. If that group wanted to maintain an entire section under aeth.. cataloging their objections, that would be fine. But as you said, that group has added absolutely no substance (up or down), and answered painfully few return questions posed to them.

This whole affair turns my stomach, but maybe like a cow, I benefit from reconsidering what I have swallowed. I so wish WC n' The Gang would do the same. TTLR


 * Pgio: I can not for the life of me understand people who claim to be scientific, refusing to simply allow others a place to build articles which if nothing else, document work "outside" of the mainstream.  The group that formed in opposition, will not even make short comments about how they feel aeth is "unscientific".  I can't tell you how much I would love to here their reasoning, anything, even just one little item where they point out something I have over-looked.  I do not want to, no one genuine should, want to go down a path into a field where a giant blind spot of inconsistency awaits.  Especially if someone else knows what that is, I really want to know too.  If they are so brilliantly scientific, why won't they simply "speak down" to my childish level, and tell me what is so wrong with the work of the Correa's?  It's not like I'm six years old with a delicate sensitivity, or if I had some giant Ego, they shouldn't have any hesitation attacking that.


 * I am driven to only two likely and realistic conclusions. Nether of which do I have an easy solution for.  The first, which I just feel absolutely silly putting out there, but that a few of the influential people leading the 'pseudo label' pack, know there very well could be something of substance to the original material presented...   yet for countless speculative reasons, want to keep it marginalized.


 * The second, and which I feel is vastly more insidious, is shear unadulterated, self inflicted, self perpetuating, ignorance. Compounded by the inertia of ones conform zone.  This wiki is very young, but if this is any example of where it is going, it is nothing more than the latest high-tech gadget which will help man once again listen to a skipping record.


 * What can I say, click my email if you like, I would be delighted to share some other thoughts I have on Aeth, Plasm Cosmology, and a few other odds n' ends that Wikipedia just isn't ready for. Peace.  TTLR

Aetherometry
Thought I'd start dropping some commentary on editors' actions in Aetherometry here. Like this comment I left on User:Viriditas' talk page, after a particularly speedy recat...


 * Dammit, Viriditas, use the talk page! Do you even understand the article you're recategorizing? This page was stable for 12 days WITHOUT the pseudoscience category until David Gerard came along and changed it, with no justification. Consider that before you edit.Pgio 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

...which Viriditas deleted with this edit summary...


 * Remove personal attack. I understand that the article is pseudoscience

Wow! How brave! How honest! How ethical! How incredibly well-reasoned! I replied...


 * That was no personal attack that you deleted. If you don't participate in the talk page and justify your view, you aren't demonstrating understanding of anything. Ridiculous, truly. Pgio 10:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

...which he also removed. Unbelievable. Pgio 10:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pgio - Thought you'd appreciate the grim humor of Wikipedian adminship being sought on the basis of participation in wikipedian smear campaigns, if you haven't already seen it - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf

Last edit
Hi Pgio, sorry my last edit was restoring another user's comment I accidentally reverted. - Randwicked 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for your vote
I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder, and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Janusz Karpinski
Hi, Pgio. That Karpinski who makes wheelchair is not me and not even relative. Pity, because wheelchair looks very interesting, as you say. I think I read in Wired magazine a few years ago also about wheelchair that climbs on stairs, made by Dean Kamen (maybe it is spelled Kammen). I dont know what happened to it. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Freestylefrappe
Yeah, that's right, blocked for saying "IMHO WMC is a jerk." Personal insult, huh? Sockpuppet? I'm fucking steamed, Freestylefrappe. And coming right after WMC's admin confirmation? If you're trying to punish me this is some of the most ridiculous bullshit gamesmanship I've ever seen. Pgio 03:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm calm.
Block by Freestylefrappe is nonsensical. I am being accused of being a sockpuppet for a user who has been registered less than two weeks, yet my edit history stretches back into summer 2005. I can't imagine how anyone could construe this block justified. IMHO. Pgio 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The block has expired, but no explanation so far. Pgio 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

user conduct RfC on NSLE
I looked through the recent IP blocks to see if Freestylefrappe blocked the rogue admin NSLE (see the edit history of user talk:Freestylefrappe), but, to my surprise, I saw that he blocked YOU, and libellously accused both of us of using dishonest sockpuppetteering. If he uses libel (which I opposed in my candidate statement), then why would he vote for me? -It is because he had come into a personal conflict with Ral315 earlier, and I had criticized Ral315 in my candidate statement, so he doesn't support my platform after all.

Anyway, I am planning to make a user conduct RfC on the rogue admin NSLE. I saw that NSLE libellously accused the user SEWilco of making a WP:POINT violation for making honest get-out-the-vote messages on the candidate William M Connolly, his POV ally. User conduct RfCs require a minimum of 2 people to initiate. I already requested that SEWilco himself join the RfC initiation, but I want you to be a co-initiator as well.

NSLE may have also made a libellous false accusation of WP:POINT violation by a person (KDRGibby) that voted against him that did not have suffrage, just because the 2 of them had come into conflict, but I have not investigated that particular case.

However, NSLE's most gross and clear-cut policy violations (recently, anyway) have been made against myself. I can hardly even list them all by memory. Let's see... 1. He has vandalized my candidate page under libellous pretenses, 2. He has blocked me under libellous pretenses in which he has projected his own behaviors onto me, 3. He has restored his vandalism on my candidate page after I had deleted it, and after he had blocked me, 4. After he blocked me, he deleted my report of his actions in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as well as my report of his allies that have also violated policy while attacking me, 5. After he blocked me, he libellously discreditted me to a seemingly less-biased admin (Freestylefrappe), so as to convince said admin not to interfere with his gross policy violations against me, 6. He has falsely portrayed me by requesting a CheckUser on me under libellous pretenses (I don't mind the CheckUser itself; it's the false portrayal that one is warranted).

Also, it is becoming clear that NSLE is a member of a powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique that also definitely includes members Ambi, William M Connolly, and Ral315, and possibly many others as well, such as Joke137, Ems57fcva, Todfox, and Jeffrey O Gustafson. A user conduct RfC would also provide more evidence to implicate such wikiclique members, as NSLE's policy violations are so extreme and cut-and-dry that no honest user could possibly discount them.

some evidence, though yet incomplete:

Well, I can't say that I didn't warn him not to grossly violate policy. Now, NSLE or one of his wikiclique allies might vandalise this talk page or block me under libellous pretenses now or later, so coordinate with me by emailing me at: cpt (at) icerocket.com. LawAndOrder 23:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Freestylefrappe
I'll talk to him if I can catch him on IRC later, I'll see what I can do. BTW, re the above from LawAndOrder, I'll just note that since we've never interacted before this, for you to be a coinitiator would make no sense ;). NSL E (T+C) 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought you were referring to a completely different incident and another user I had blocked. I dont remember why I blocked you, but I'll see if I can figure out why. I do remember it was a comment you made towards William M. Conolly. freestylefrappe 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On User talk:LawAndOrder you called him a jerk. WP:NPA. Perhaps a bit long for a PA block but Wikipedia is not the place for namecalling. freestylefrappe 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI: LawAndOrder has been blocked infinitely by Kelly Martin, by the request of NSLE. JSIN 12:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah Pgio, you are most definitely in the wrong place. What does one (sane person) call people who cannot stand opposition and disagreement to the point of censorship, repression and suppression? Ordinary half-bowl fascists. The Durrutti Column81.193.152.61

love the last line
of your profile...wiki is a wee bit psychotic at times, and i'm just starting to notice this...