→Fringe Science: Tiptoety, consider the source of that comment |
Tom Butler (talk | contribs) →Fringe Science: Stay out of this! |
||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
: Tom, you are misrepresenting the facts, as usual. I don't know of anyone who supports his attrocious style of editing, but they do support his scientific POV. You have likely been on the receiving end from SA because you push your extremely fringe and real world OR into Wikipedia as if it is true. My god! You actually believe that [[Electronic voice phenomena]] are the voices of dead people! Now that's not only fringe, it's loony. No wonder you haven't been warmly received here. You have succeeded in misusing Wikipedia to give your own EVP concept, website, and organization notability. Talk about a COI! That's pretty wild and totally wrong here. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
: Tom, you are misrepresenting the facts, as usual. I don't know of anyone who supports his attrocious style of editing, but they do support his scientific POV. You have likely been on the receiving end from SA because you push your extremely fringe and real world OR into Wikipedia as if it is true. My god! You actually believe that [[Electronic voice phenomena]] are the voices of dead people! Now that's not only fringe, it's loony. No wonder you haven't been warmly received here. You have succeeded in misusing Wikipedia to give your own EVP concept, website, and organization notability. Talk about a COI! That's pretty wild and totally wrong here. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Attack ... attack ... attack! That is all friends of SA seem to know how to do! |
|||
::Okay Fyslee, first of all, I was addressing Tiptoety on his page. What business is it of yours? |
|||
::As is so typical of ideological edits, you are the one misrepresenting the facts. I began editing Wikipedia because I mistakenly thought it was a collaborate effort to establish a useful and trustworthy knowledge-base for the public. (my mistake.) I also began because the [http://aaevp.com AA-EVP] was being featured in the [Electronic voice phenomena] article ... misrepresented, really. My first effort was to explain what EVP is thought to be and [http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm the defensible theories pro and con], but after being attacked over and over again, I settled for distancing the AA-EVP from the article. (By the way, you just used the plural form of EVP. Don't you remember that SA and his genius friends decided it was singular and piss and moaned at me for trying to make it plural?) |
|||
::Sure I work with a frontier subject, but if you had the courage to read some of our website material, you would see that we are doing all we can do to study the subject. It is an observed recording anomaly that cannot be simply ignored. Are you so afraid of new knowledge that you have to suppress it as SA does to protect the status quo? Isn't saying something is impossible without empirical evidence just as bad as saying it is possible without real evidence? |
|||
::Why is it that Wikipedia is controlled by ideologues rather than scholars? [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler|talk]]) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:30, 11 March 2009
7:16 am, 5 June 2024 (PDT)
| |||||||||||||||||
Rollback of User:SahilmThanks so much! I have already started using Huggle. I shall continue my pursuit of vandals. Once again thank you, and Happy Editing! As requested above: humor!You've probably had this one before, but I'll try it anyway. :) "Knock, knock". Acalamari 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC) "Who's there?" Tiptoety talk 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) "Willy." Acalamari 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) "Willy who? " :o Tiptoety talk 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) "Willy on Wheels!" (Then moves "User and User talk:Tiptoety" to "User and User talk:Tiptoety on Wheels!" and walks away laughing.) Acalamari 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) /me Quickly blocks Acalamari, then has him desyoped. Who's laughing now? :-P Tiptoety talk 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Hey Tiptoety. :) I saw that you have added {{CheckedPuppeteer}} to User:RMHED, which suggests that you have indef-blocked RMHED. However, according to the log, you did not - did you forget? Regards, — Aitias // discussion 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Date delinking injunctionNot sure if this falls under the injunction, or if it is significant enough, but you may wish to look over Special:Contributions/Colonies Chris. (I'd consider myself too involved in the issue to act as an admin here, hence the question. Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Really?Did I seem pointy? Okay, I'll change the bold vote to "No", although the content will remain the same. I'm just saying that I agree with the majority, but there's no need to panic, and I tried to give a little of the history of where admin recall came from, and why it seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Colors Tennis Grand Slams Compared to GolfOn golfing articles the major championships are matched with the appropriate colors in the wikitables, navboxs, and pages, but the Tennis ones are not the US Open page is in blue the navbox for the major is in blue and the navbox for champions is in blue yet in the wikitable for the major it is yellow? The is the opposite for the Australian it is yellow for everything except for the wikitables! I have suggested and no one on the tennis project of grand slams has responded in time about this inconsistency! This needs to be rectified to match! TennisAuthority 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, can you userfy User: Origin of Melvin for like 5 minutes so I can copy it on my computer, then you can delete it. Please respond ASAP on my talkpage. Thanks!Cssiitcic (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) You are obviously confusedAgain, this has already been clarified by an ArbCom member: "If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you." My fixing a handful of page links a day is nothing akin to the 20 per minute bot and script de-linking that this injunction was meant to stop. -- Kendrick7talk 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
RBGood day Tiptoety! Appreciate the rollback rights. Noticed the humor-needed post at the top, so I would suggest the un-rated Bad Santa DVD. Hide and kids, though! Kresock (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A sockLappeldu (talk · contribs) is obviously a sock of Jacob Peters: [1]. Could you please block him? Unfortunately, I can not ask any Russian admins. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Old spammer talk pagesHi. Could you save old spammer pages for deletion and not delete them? Spammers hop from one account or IP or another as they get warnings or blocks over many months or years. We need to be able to see what warnings they may have gotten in the past across their different talk pages; this way we can see whether we should add their domains to our spam blacklist. (Many non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis use our blacklists for their own filtering so we're reluctant to blacklist domains unless we see they've ignored multiple warnings.) We also need these pages if we subsequently get blacklist removal requests here on the English Wikipedia or at MetaWiki's global blacklist; this is also necessary when reviewing whitelist requests as well. For example, see the deletion log and restored talk page for User:9Panoyork. Beyond that, there have been broader discussions underway first at at User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 13#Spam-tracking pages, then at Wikipedia talk:User page#OLDIP and finally at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#U4. Others have expressed concerns that other long-term vandals and POV-pushers skip accounts as well and need to be tracked via old account warnings. Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) PS this is a request, not a complaint, since old user talk pages have been eligible for speedy deletion (although they're in a state of flux now on this issue and may or may not have changed in the last day or two.)
hiDid you see my rollback request? Syjytg (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Why are you ignoring me? Syjytg (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Fast work. Just realised I made a balls of the original report, putting Dellsarecool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in twice when I had meant to include Oldschool411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - do I need to create a new report? pablohablo. 18:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no "knock knock" jokes but …
pablohablo. 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC) HelloHi there, you have just removed my comment from an archive pages saying don't edit archives, but please tell me how to defend myself against claims, as I see in the page "Comments by accused parties" where should I put the comment you just deleted, Thanks. Megahmad (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your messagewrong user? Hello, I have deleted your userpage pursuant Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy (WP:CHILD) which states: Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information. I have done this for your protection. You may recreate the page, but upon doing so I ask that you do not re add any information that reveals your age as doing so will get it deleted again. If you want I am more than willing to provide you with a copy of the deleted material via email. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Vinson 23:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Oh i get it now. Sending a copy of the the page would be great. And what is the definition of a child? Vinson 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
headdesk Daniel (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Barnstar!
Fringe ScienceSince the author of the post failed to notify you... WP:ANI#Dubious block. I've already closed it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety, as a person who has suffered the abuse of ScienceApologist and those who support his style of editing, I would like to thank you for taking a stand that might eventually improve Wikipedia. All of the protest I have read thus far conveniently ignores how SA got to this situation in the first place. If Wikipedia had a "three strikes and you are out" policy, SA would have been out years ago. Tom Butler (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
|