User talk:Rainbowwrasse/Archive 1

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  Introduction
 * 5     The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tips
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.svg|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.svg|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

chemistry
Hey, I am not trying to force you to edit war with me, so rather than just restore them, could you explain why you would want to delete the references to Nature and the NYTimes regarding the arsenic nonsense? This is not my pet theory and I am not defending it at all - just curious why remove the refs from a wikipedia standpoint. I will look for your answer here. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Medeis, thanks for the message. I was just busy starting to write on your talk page to explain in more detail so you didn't think I was editing it to annoy you... I took the refs out because they are secondary refs of the original and don't add further support to what is being said in the article. I kept the NASA page as a ref for NASA funding, and the original article for the rest. The Nature News and NYTimes article are mainly summaries of the original, so they shouldn't be used to give the impression of independent support. They don't corroborate the original, but just report on it. Same with the Redfield 'Letter to Science', that just summarizes the original blog criticisms, so I removed it. I had originally taken out the PHB/water activity statement because it isn't a properly developed theory, but more or less just a single statement in the original paper. I also simply didn't think this would be the right place to go into that much detail, especially since there is a whole article on it, so repeating all that seemed a bit too much. I only added the criticisms to make it more balanced; if I were to write it from scratch, I think there should just be a brief mention with linkouts, something like: “It has been speculated that the earliest life forms on Earth may have used arsenic in place of phosphorus in the backbone of their DNA.[14] Although arsenate esters are so much less stable to hydrolysis than corresponding phosphate esters that arsenic would not be suitable for this function,[15] a heavily criticized[18][19] 2010 geomicrobiology study supported in part by NASA claimed that a bacterium, named GFAJ-1, collected in the sediments of Mono Lake, can employ such 'arsenic DNA' [16][17].” That captures the gist of it, and links out to the relevant articles. I don't have particularly strong feelings about the wording of the article, so do whatever you want. Have a nice day.Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My only concern then would be that a reference remains which is accessible to lay readers.  If I get around to it find it necessary I might restore one.00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the article will remain freely available at the cited source, so it should be fine.Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Felisa Wolfe-Simon lead
I've moved your comment to the article talk page. I will respond there. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer that as well, thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk section in Gentleman scientist
Wikipedia policy encourages removal of potentially (keep your opinion if you want) insulting content about living persons and this exactly that I want to do with this discussion. If necessary I will apply for help exactly following instructions as it is advised in the banner at the top of the talk page. Audriusa (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is very little in the discussion that could be construed as insulting to a living person, it hardly even mentions a person. The only passage that makes any reference to a living person is 'The work may be notable but the scientists, which is the subject of this article, are not'. Although I can't see how this is insulting, removing this passage might be an option. Deleting the whole discussion thread seems a little radical. The discussion mainly deals with the removal of unsourced material and the notability of a particular study. It is not concerned with the biography of a living person. Please specify which particular sections you find potentially insulting. Those can then be selectively blanked. Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All discussion must be blanked as it discloses sensitive personal information that is not published elsewhere (fact of ). The project team (two living persons) is not willing to share this information. As I understand, they do not need to go into endless discussions why they do not like the content Audriusa (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry to go on about this, but there has been no disclosure of personal information in the discussion. If anything, the discussion very clearly demonstrates that there is no basis to believe that anyone involved in the study (which isn't even mentioned, so there is nothing in the discussion to link this to an actual person) had any voluntary contribution. The only person ever to have suggested this was in fact you, in the article (and this information has been removed). Just because you personally don't like the contents or outcome of a particular discussion thread does not mean you can delete it on the grounds that someone else may not like it. I have seen no evidence that the team involved has any opinion at all about any 'disclosure'. To say that they do is another unfounded assumption by you. I suspect that you simply are unhappy with the discussion yourself, could this be true? Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, me, but I have blanked my posts also. Audriusa (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really an answer, is it?...Rainbowwrasse (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have already said everything and have nothing more to add, at least to the listener of your kind. Audriusa (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that there was no real reason for your deletion in the first place? Why did you do it then? Also please elaborate on 'the listener of your kind', Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the discussion in redacted format to remove any direct references. I think this is a solution we both can live with. Please note that I have not altered any of your entries, as it would be inapproprate for me to do so. I think your entries are fine, but please do check. Thanks, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Water Memory
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Water Memory. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have repeatedly requested discussion on the article's talk page. This request has been consistently ignored and no attempt has been made by any editor to address my concerns with the validity of the statement in question. Instead, my edits were constantly reverted without any indication of any desire for dialogue. It seems ironic that I should be accused of edit warring. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been reverted by 3 different editors. Perhaps you should try another approach.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did not realize that three people agreeing on an unsourced opinion and demanding 'more proof!' for a sourced statement constitutes a valid argument. Good news for creationists then! ;-) Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. You broke the WP:3RR rule at Water memory, and are at risk of being blocked. If you respond at the noticeboard and agree to wait for consensus on the talk page before reverting again, you may be able to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see comment on that page. Thanks, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Water memory
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Water memory. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I apologize for my previous flurry of reversions and will not do so again. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Message
Hey. I just wanted to personally comment on the edit warring debacle. I hope you understand that I'm not "out to get you", or "opposing all your edits for the sake of it", or whatever. It's very clear to me that you're operating in good faith, and trying to improve the encyclopedia. I commend that, and very much want to help you toward that goal. I understand that it can be frustrating when someone reverts your contributions (we've all been there), but often the revert and subsequent discussion (if done constructively and collaboratively) lead to a better result than the initial reverted edit. Hopefully that's something we can work towards, together! I also hope you understand that my EW report (and the subsequent blocking) have nothing to do with your contributions, except to the extent that they aimed to enforce a rule we have regarding reverting, which is necessary to ensure that editors are collaborating with others. It's clear to me that you want to collaborate (I do to!), so we shouldn't have any trouble going forward! Anyway, I know it's easy to feel like others are talking past you online (especially in an environment like wikipedia), and I wanted to make sure you didn't feel that way with our discussion. If I've come off as blunt, it's only because I have limited time and have to keep my replies short sometimes. If it seems like I'm ignoring an important point, please clarify and indicate as much, and I'll do my best to address it! If you have any questions, feel free to pop over to my talk page! Good luck! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The EW report and blocking were totally deserved and were of my own doing. I did believe that you were oppossing my edits just for the hell of it, but then I probably came across as very disruptive. I really should stop using WP edits as therapy... You clearly have a considered opinion on the topic in question and are not merely trying to push your views. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)