User talk:PeterStJohn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:49, 9 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, PeterStJohn, 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Neuron article

Thank you for alerting us to the vandal edit on the Neuron article. I have reverted it. You can too, as with experience you will recognize it quickly. The great majority of vandalism is done by anonymous IP address editors. Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Mirror

It's not a bad idea, but we already have something similar ;) Have a look at meta:Toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about IRC? Have a look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bjelleklang/pjirc/, and join me and others at #wikipedia-bootcamp, or if you use another client, #wikimedia-toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary bug report

{{helpme}} the page Special:WantedPages or [Special:WantedPages] appears to down; it shows zero counts. There is a note on the talk page from yesterday, so the failure seems to be about a day old. I don't have access to IIRC from this machine and didn't know a better mechanism for bringing this to the attention to someone more clueful, other than 'helpme'. Thanks. Peter H. St.John, M.S. 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to aim messages of this sort is probably the technical Village Pump (WP:VPT). --ais523 17:36, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

move

I have moved PeteScratchPad to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad. Personal pages are perfectly OK but they must have the correct names. -- RHaworth 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did remember to thank you :-) at Your talk page --Pete

Example

Responded here. ike9898 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to cleam up the article per your critique and discussed it some, with links, on your Talk page. Pete St.John 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me laugh

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Pete St.John for making me laugh out loud. Great humor and witty observations are always appreciated - keep it up! -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still laughing about this one! Keep up the good work and feel free to move this to your user page if you'd like. -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! --Pete

Blue Collar Computing

Peter, I'm also concerned about the Blue collar article, as I think it may be a direct cut and paste from the website about it. This could be a copyright violation in addition to sounding like an advertisement. What do you think we should do?--Analogue Kid 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at OSC item on your talk page. I think you are helping them out, by editting their POV advertising before someone who doesn't care just reverts or deletes it. Pete St.John 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Just so you know, you don't have to pipelink every time you link to everything with spaces in the name. Sample Article will land at Sample_Article, and doesn't require any piping. And mass will go to Mass just fine. The Wiki software always assumes an initial capital, so you don't have to worry about that either. ♠PMC♠ 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was suspicious (because I noticed the typography you used) but didn't take the time to check it out. Pete St.John 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelob and probability theory

you’re right, intuition is tricky. even having slightly “improved” my intuition based on already knowing about the birthday paradox, mine still broke down, i guess due to the size of the numbers. there are, according to the main page, 1,653,406 articles. i hit “random” roughly 250 times. if you want to test your own intuition, guess what the odds are for a repeat? the answer (assuming i did the math right) is visible if you highlight between the two x’s below.

x 1.88% x

not too likely, but not lottery-ticket-buying-inducing, either.

thanks for the interesting comment. -barneca 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunker - Live Music Venue

Nope, this was a regular article in regular article space when I deleted it. NawlinWiki 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: this refers to User:The.aldgate.bunker; may as well forgot it unless/until they ask for help. Pete St.John

Operating System

I understand. Thank you for your help. I was only looking at the last part of the sentence rather than the whole. The only thing I don't think is good is the pronunciation of GUI because there's really the spelling it out technique, and that's what got me. It's more of like a region's pronunciation rather than a generic one. Also, there's only one GUI per operating system. Other than that, yeah, it was a sticky fix and I've learned from it, and will let it be. Thanks for notifying me so I would know in the future to look at the whole rather than just a part of the sentence. --Bookinvestor 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Book's Talk page.Pete St.John 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand how there can be two GUIs in an OS. Thanks for your explanation.

One thing that's strange, though, is that I'm an American, and I've been taught to say "gee-you-eye", spelling out the letters rather than trying to pronounce it. SCSI I pronounce the general "scuzzy," but I spell out OS, PCMCIA, and all that is less renown or hard to interpret. I guess, though, that it's learned from the street, and I just thought the exact same in "gooey."

I know a little more on the way pronunciations go. Thanks for your help. It's been a great discussion. --Bookinvestor 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links or links?

I changed the capitalization, as it appears to be standard on wikipedia for the links section to be headed "External links". It is stated in wikipedia's Manual of Style.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:external_links

TubularWorld 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Leigh

I did a quick fix to the article to give his exact position & show his awards--articles like this are likely to be deleted by some of the people around here these days--you should probably add some refs to his best known papers. DGG (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Watergate

Thanks, I was feeling a bit befuddled by the continued insistence that I was being biased when I'm keenly aware of issues in biographies of living persons and try to report only what happened in the most neutral voice possible. Honestly, I wasn't even alive when Watergate happened, and I'm not that interested in it or anything. Just trying to keep things up to date here. I appreciate you backing me up, guess we'll just wait and see what happens.--Analogue Kid 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go

Thank you for alerting me to my error. I hope it is repaired now. Larry R. Holmgren 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. When I give a 13-stone handicap as the corners are still open with only the hoshi point covered, the bells are covered with #10 through 13 to give the novice a chance to win. Larry R. Holmgren 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR edits

Thanks for the comments. I might apply the knife a little too liberally, but if it's worth expanding, someone else will come along and expand it, and hopefully that person won't be in the PR department. :P I cut Blue Collar Computing way back, as well. The text added had been somewhat de-POV'd, but it still read like a press release, if a slightly less enthusiastic one. kmccoy (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:199.72.115.66

Thanks for the heads up. The first block was only for 3 hours. This one is 24 hours. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Good

Glad you spotted the edit conflict and fixed it up. Cheers. Robert Brockway 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus

I watch the Columbus article, so I've been seeing this develop over some days. I decided that it was time to jump in, since both sides had some good points but I agreed with the majority — not to mention the idea of consensus :-) Nyttend 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism" from public terminal

You left the following message for this IP address (128.100.68.211) :

"It don't vandalize, as you did to the Wolfram page. Also, repeating the same vandalism as another anonymous IP address will bring investigations of "sock-puppetry". What is the effect you are hoping to achieve? Pete St.John 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"

This is a public computer, so I'm unsure to what vandalism you're referring, but if you have a concern about vandalism you should definitely state what the problem is and perhaps link to the relevant page. Then perhaps someone will acknowledge your complaint and report it to some appropriate administrators, or at least make it known among frequent users of this computer.128.100.68.211 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erdos Numbers DRV

Mathematicians are getting slammed at the Deletion Review for Erdos Numbers, because people are voting to "endorse" (erdos numbers) but "endorse" means "endorse the deletion". I think you want to overturn, but only for Erdos numbers < some maximum. Thanks at least for caring, it's a mess and we need help. Pete St.John 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the well-meant notice.

But, no, I posted what I intended to.

Also, while I do appreciate notices and comments, not everyone does. And there are those who frown on such as improper canvassing. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Canvassing so that you're at least aware of what's generally acceptable, and what's not. - jc37 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your deletion of my comment here on your talk page removes some context. Apparently you accept that your vote at the deletion review could be misinterpreted, to have been the same confusion as an earlier vote above it.

Second, thanks, I read just now the canvassing item, and without having read it previously, I plainly comply with every single point of it. I'd be happy for any exception to be brought to my attention. Pete St.John 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response:

What context do you feel was removed by unifying the discussion?

No, I think that those who are not regulars at DRV may have been confused, and so requested clarification, and offered to clarify my own comments.

And while you may note that my comments above stayed neutral on whether your notice was proper or not, I don't think it was. "Mathematicians are getting slammed..." and "...we need help." are just two examples. It clearly shows bias, and an intent towards a specific outcome for the discussion. It's a common mistake, and imho, no big deal, but I wanted you to be aware of it, for future reference. - jc37 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good answers.

first, yes, I'm used to the confusing style of dropping notes at each others' talk pages. Deleting the item from your page, and moving it to mine, lost me. But I see what you are doing now and indeed, no context is lost.
yes, I favor "overturn" and I'd be dishonest to appear otherwise, just as Kbwhatever favors "delete". I was surprised by his voting on his own closure, but it's not really a vote. I would have to grep for precedent. In this case, the deletionists have gotten out their vote big time, witness three nominations to delete, of which only the third attempt suceeded. A view on the math pages is that we are being spammed into submission. I'm willing to take a certain amount of risk to myself to agitate for standing up for ourselves, but your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Pete St.John 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

And btw, though I disagree, lately I've been accused of being a deletionist myself. (Which, besides being what I deem to be an inclusionist/eventualist, I find interesting for the different reason that such terms apply mostly to article content, but I digress...)

Anyway, despite the discussions, I hope you're having a good day : ) - jc37 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, two remarks. Firstly, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind (I see Jc37 already mentioned this, but it bears repeating). Secondly, in reply to your remark on KSmrq's talk page: everybody can comment at the Deletion Review, not only administrators. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter: Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. To be honest, it was never a big deal for me—and it obviously is for those who care passionately about such things—so I'm happy for the category to be reinstated. After all, it doesn't hurt anything, does it! :) MeegsC | Talk 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI re your canvassing

Hello PeterStJohn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rebutted you at the indicated link, and IMO you are deliberately making ad hominem and unfounded accustations, at the vary least with out adequate research (you accuse me of not notifying YOU of a thread which YOU had already posted to. Obviously I figured you already knew about a thread that YOU had posted to.) Your incessant spam on this matter, with accusations of personal attacks intermixed with personal attacks, is abusive and I'm complaining about it. Pete St.John 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, the accusation of canvassing was well-founded, and had already been pointed out to you by Jc37 (thoug I notice that only after going to WP:ANI), and it's a good thing that you partially corrected the imbalance of your notifications. However, as noted at WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV, I did not post to that thread until 16 hours after you stopped canvassing: see the DRV pge history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I read your message and you're right that it's getting out of hand. You should adhere strictly to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, whatever others say and however right you are. If you find yourself referring to another editor, especially if by name, think again whether it's really necessary. In my experience, it really pays to be excruciatingly diplomatic. For instance, in the WP:ANI thread that BrownHairedGirl started, I didn't say "BrownHairedGirl's accusation is baseless", as I had first written down, but I changed it to "the canvassing accusation seems baseless".

Secondly, be meticulous in your research. Did BrownHairedGirl really post to the Deletion Review page before you notified people like DGG and MeegsC who supported deleting the Erdos numbers categories? I don't think so. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC) via edit conflict[reply]

Several points. Yes, I made a mistake, Brownhaired girl did not post to that thread during that time frame. I posted about it at the ANI item.

Jc37 mentioned the canvassing thing to me prior to the deletion review creation, on account of my posts at WikiProject:mathematics and others. When I created the deletion review, I first notified the closing admin as per instructions, and then I canvassed the previous voters, intending to comply with the guidelines that had been brought to my attention. DGG, for example, posted in response to Brownhairedgirl's objectin that no, he had been a "delete" voter but had been notified by my canvassing. I mistakenly believed that Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem already knew about it. I did not notify the anonymous IP address who had voted to delete. I did notify, DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46, who had all voted to delete. I had intended to comply with the guidelines and I believe I substantially did. My research was defective, but in all fairness, so was Brownhairgirl's, apparently assuming that since I didn'nt notify her, I hadn't notified the other delete voters. I believe that in creating the ANI formal accustation, the burden of thorough research was on her, too. Pete St.John 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, we all make mistakes, but it's best to apologise for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: further ANI complaint on your continued votestacking efforts, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The_votestacking_exercise_continues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of unethical canvassing

Jc37, after your advice about canvassing, Brownhairedgirl formally accused me of unethical canvassing, see User_talk:PeterStJohn#ANI_re_your_canvassing. I have rebutted at the link she gave. I don't have experience with wiki disputes (arbitration?) and would very much appreciate your advice about what mechanism I should seek for help. I myself believe that Brownhairedgirl has not acted in good faith, but regardless of that, I seek something like equal representation. Please let me know what I can, may, or should do to defend myself, and seek redress.

Incidentally, I don't mean to depict myself as an innocent naif, or even particularly innocent. I anticpated exactly her objection; she accuses me of notifying only "keep" voters about the motion to overturn the deletion, but in fact I notified all the voters (using her own prior canvassing as a guideline, btw) except for one anonymous IP address, and the two voters who had already posted on the overturn thread, who presumably therefore knew of it's existence, one of which was Brownhairedgirl herself. So maybe I'm evil in anticipating her excess, but I'm trying to play by the rules in the face of a huge spam campaign (as some of us charaterize the deletion movement, which I remind you was opposed 11-5, but carried anyway).
anyway thanks for caring. Flamewars suck, and it's not fair to spill onto you, and I'm in this more or less knowingly. But the wiki context is new to me. At least please point me to an admin who might care to help? Or a place where I could ask for help? Thanks. Pete St.John 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, it's a real pity that you claim that I and SparsityProblem had already posted on the overturn thread. If you look at the page history of the deletion review, you'll see that neither I nor Sparsity Problem commented in that DRV thread until today. I was mistaken in thinking that you had notified none of the delete !voters, and have already apologised for that at ANI, so I hope that you too will check the records and withdraw this claim that I had already voted and the accusations of "excess" and bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been doing that, conceeding the mistake in several places. I was wrong to believe that you had already posted on that thread at that time. There are alot of places. Pete St.John 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. There's been a lot of text about this. Let me finish reading, and I'll get back to you soon. - jc37 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from what I can tell, this current concern mostly concerns the edits at the WikiProject's talk page. And while I believe that would normally be a good place to have such a discussion, it appears it's becoming disruptive. So based on my observations, and the observations of others, including those at the AN/I discussion, and notices on this page, I'm going to give you a warning (see section below). - jc37 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating status

At this writing, the vote at the deletion review is 11 "endorse" (leave the category deleted) and 19 "overturn" (restore the category). The latter includes my vote, once I realized that anyone can vote (votes are really "comments" in a conventional format). This may not get us the category back, but I think it's worthwhile to send a message, that a large user group is disappointed by the administrative fiat against a plain consensus, not merely the whims of a special interest group. Pete St.John 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who are interested can check the WP:DRV themselves; it isn't necessary to post additional announcements here, and it could be interpreted as continued canvassing. For the moment, the right place to discuss these categories is the deletion review. Keeping a cool head and giving strong arguments goes a long way.— Carl (CBM · talk) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern and in fact I am, indeed, making trouble for myself. However, I mean to promote a community response, and I believe that's important. It's not a fait acomplis as many seem to feel, and admin fiat is not an act of God. I mean to stay within ethical guidelines, but as three consecutive votes in favor of keeping the category were ignored by the admin, I feel railroaded. Two wrongs don't make a right, but a certain amount of politics is evidently necessary, like death and taxes. However, I'll see if I can chill for awhile, thanks. Pete St.John —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this here. Wikipedia does have some element of politics, but not in the way you are trying to implement. There was no "plain consensus" about these categories; both sides have points, and the situation is not clear cut. Moreover, everyone is working for what they think is the best outcome. I'm not involved in the discussion, although I am both a mathematician and an admin. I hope you will hear my advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updating status, here in user space.

As per the above criticism. Currently, the vote is 24 overturn (restore the deleted Erdos Number categories) and still 11 endorse (leave the category deleted). All 5 of the new contributions are to overturn (which may lend credence to the "canvassing" critique), although at least one of those was monitoring the deletion reviews, not the math project. I'm particulary gratified by "outsider" editors concurring that the admin's deletion was not in accordance with policy regarding respecting consensus. Presumably the effects of canvassing will be considered to be quelled as time passes and more admins and editors weigh in on acount of the review and censure activities, and not on account of my canvassing or whatever the opposition may or may not have done or be doing. Pete St.John 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone it down

We get it - you have strong feelings about an ongoing DRV. However, please stop canvassing, campaigning, and "getting out the vote" at WikiProject Mathematics. It's well within accepted practice to leave a neutral message notifying a Wikiproject of an AfD or DRV, but you've gone well beyond that and are campaigning actively and disruptively. More importantly, perhaps, you've gone beyond the point where you're doing your cause any favors. I'm going to ask you to please stop any and all posts related to the DRV and confine whatever comments you have to the DRV page itself. The Wikiproject has been suitably notified, and the discussion on AN/I will attract additional opinions. If you continue campaigning, vote-counting, and aruging your case outside the DRV, particularly using the sort of uncivil language cited by User:BrownHairedGirl, then you're likely to be blocked at least for the duration of the deletion review for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell ^Talk 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Concerning ongoing disruption regarding the DRV of Erdros numbers.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked until the DRV discussion is closed. - jc37 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm answering this, and MastCell (see above), at their respective talk pages, asking for specifics. Pete St.John 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - I'm merely responding to others' concerns. Though I think it's fair to say that there is no need for further "notification". I think the one comment that concerns me the most is :

"I'm willing to take a certain amount of risk to myself to agitate for standing up for ourselves..."

I hope it's being made clear that your "agitations" are being seen as inappropriate and disruptive (as well as uncivil). - jc37 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all anyone is asking for is for you to avoid campaigning on other pages about the DRV, at least until it is over. That seems like a reasonable gesture to make in the interests of fostering collegiality. Arguing about whether it is allowed by the letter of a policy document will not win any points for your cause of the Erdos number categories. Moreover, once this issue passes, the same people will be around, and we will still need to work with them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. - jc37 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

charge of unethical conduct

Jc37, at my talk page you wrote:

...Concerning ongoing disruption regarding the DRV of Erdros numbers. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked until the DRV discussion is closed. - jc37 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)...[reply]

I take it that your opinion is that I am (to some significant extent) disrupting Wikipedia. These points:

Does the ongoing ANI (I haven't checked it yet) regarding canvassing, pertain? My sense is that the accusation there was satisfactorily answered, particularly by the opposing voters I was suppposed not to have notified. Will you be bringing a new ANI if I continue some particular activity (I'm not sure which, specifically), or will you block me summarily?
I would appreciate it if you would point to specifics of what constitutes my "ongoing disruption".
I take it that you do not consider the subjects of my initial complaint (unilaterally overturning a conspicuous consensus) or the consequent rhetoric (persistant and repetitive spamming of "reasons" which had all been addressed, persistant arguement ad hominem, and several insinuations that our responses are unethical or misleading, while the opposing rhetoric is self-evident) to be disruptive? Part of my defense to any accusation of campaigning would be to compile examples of the techniques of the opposition, so at least we could delineate what wiki considers unethical.

Thanks. Pete St.John 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I'm merely responding to others' concerns. I sincerely hope you take User:CBM's advice above. - jc37 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts already, as I write this, on my own talk page, that's novel to me. Also, I see that Brownhairedgirl has brought another ANI against me already. I probably will not be able to keep up with this, but I'll try. So I apologize in advance if I miss, particularly, addressing any "specifics" such as a I asked for. Well at least the new ANI will provide a venue we can watch, and cut down some of the talkpage count. Pete St.John 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WikiProcess

In a vote, such as real-world politics, only the final numbers matter, and vigorous efforts to bring in votes for your side (within the law) are acceptable. Wikipedia does not work that way; matters are decided either by consensus or by Jimbo. Consensus requires a process in which we get a feel for the views of the community. Ideally, we would announce as widely as possible: "A discussion is in progress; come have your say", then sit back and listen.

The ideal is rarely met, so we try to balance out distorting influences. Your exhortations to overturn the Erdős number category deletions will be treated as a distortion, and will cause voices that support overturning to be given less weight. If you persist, it also causes people to view you as an unreliable source. In other words, the more you lobby, the more it hurts your cause!

Repetitiously bringing deletion ballots for one item, and then overturning the result of the last after all three had failed, and acting by fiat to delete the item, is distorting, and undermines the confidence of the community (as a whole, not just mathematicians) in the process. Furthermore, I think two ANI items and (I'm not sure how many) variously explicit or implict threats to ban me, all in the recent history of the Deletion Review, appears to me disruptive. Canvassing personal friends invisibly, e.g. via email, would be disruptive (so I actively prefer open and public announcements and debates). I'll try to fight back ethically, but I'll fight back. Pete St.John 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the DRV uses the consensus process to review the deletion process. It is not about the merits of deleting or keeping the categories. It is about the debate and the close. Did the decision involve too much shouting? Was consensus found? Was it followed? Was policy followed? In short, the review seeks to decide if the process of deciding on deletion meets Wikipedia standards. Repetitive lobbying is frowned upon for deletion debates, but it happens; for deletion reviews, which attempt to correct for such debates, lobbying is one of the worst things you can do.

IMO, yes, the debate involved too much spam. It was the third vote against the category (in all three the vote favored "keep") and many mathematicians have expressed exasperation at the incessant attack. And not only did the debate not produce a clear consensus to delete, I would say that it exhibited a clear consensus among the interested parties (people advocating the point of view of the users of the category). Also IMO, and opionion of many others at the math project, the arguements for deletion were not strong at all, much less stronger than the arguements to keep, and the closing admin to my knowledge has never cited, much less expressed, a particular reason that he considered "stronger". In my opinion we were railroaded by a clique that has not yet been able to express their premises, values, or precedents in a way that we mathematicians have been able to understand. Pete St.John 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. The cause you support involves WikiProject Mathematics, so fairly or not your behavior shapes Wikipedia-wide perceptions of the mathematics community. If your zeal causes you to be perceived as a crank, some of that will spill over to cause all mathematicians and any cause we support to be taken less seriously.

I've been called worse than "crank" in flamewars. The issue is that cranks will win if they shout down the meek. Also, while I don't mind being called a crank someplace like the Deletion Review or my talk page, it would be another thing entirely if mathematicians called me a crank at the project talk page. I haven't seen that yet (though indeed opinions about erdos numbers, and about politics, and about what's most important, vary a great deal; mathematicians are not monolithic about things that are not objects of proof). Pete St.John 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for your own good, for the good of your cause, for the good of the mathematics community, and for the good of Wikipedia, think about what I have said and act appropriately.

At this writing, I'm reluctant to post anything at all at the project talk page, but I feel free to rebut at the two ANI items Brownhairedgirl brought against me, and at the Deletion Review, and any place other than the project talk page where people post against me or against the requested restoration.

A difficulty is the issue of seeking help from friends or interested parties. I personally believe that such is happening very among the opposition, but not in a demonstrable way. That's why I really prefer open politicking, as ugly as it is. It beats smoke-filled-room politicking. But for now I will avoid further requests for help, and hope that enough people following the debate in the putatively appropriate places will help. Pete St.John 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(No reply is necessary; but please reply here if you must.) --KSmrq^T 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I support User:KSmrq's comments, though I would like to hope that Wikipedians assume good faith of each other, rather than suggest guilt by association.

Second, PeterStJohn, your comments in response to him suggest that you intend to continue your actions as you have been. To repeat, if you continue your actions as you have been, you'll be blocked. You seem like a well-meaning editor. Please don't allow this to go further than it already has. - jc37 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow, you are a fast reader Jc, I'm still editting my comments, but doing paragraph at a time to avoid edit conflicts. But specifically, I point out definite things that I agree to avoid for now, above, so the blanket "intend to continue ...as you have been" is not accurate. But maybe that part missed between our edits. Pete St.John 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll try to fight back ethically, but I'll fight back."

Your statements, such as the sentence above, are concerning. And yes, you hadn't posted your last paragraph when I had responded.

To clarify, please cease and desist on campaigning about the article. You're welcome to comment at the DRV discussion, but please don't become harrassing, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive of the discussion. - jc37 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that "fight back" statement; as written, it suggests I'm struggling to be ethical, which isn't quite right. So I'll break it down:

I will definitely fight ethically.
I will endeavour to fight within wiki guidelines; I'm relatively new at that.

Would you act unethically, in order to stay in wiki guidelines? I don't think so. For the most part we expect our personal ethos to be compatible with wiki guidelines, in the context of wiki. I'm not so concerned about making a conscious choice to violate wiki guidelines, but making a mistake, since I'm new at it. Since this began with the feeling of being railroaded (admin fiat contravening a clear consensus after repeated failed attempts, and it's characterized that way by others at the project), a second ANI appearing concurrent with the first, plus a threat to ban, all in one day, in the face of a persistent torrent of argumentum ad hominem since this began, is stressing my capacity for good grace, but I'll try to keep it. Pete St.John 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me directly address a concern implicit in your reply to me, and elsewhere.

Your voice has been heard, your views are being taken seriously, you are not alone.

It is not necessary for you, personally, to respond to every dissent or accusation, though it is your right. Sometimes it is far more effective to say little or nothing, to let attacks collapse on their own or be refuted by others. For example, I believe you need say no more at the ANI, which will dissipate for lack of merit if you take no extreme action. Likewise, the DRV runs for several more days, and no harm will come if you sit back for a day or two and watch what happens.

Yes my voice, and the voices of others with similar views, has been heard. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that people are taking the time to cope with an avalanche of discourse. So thanks. And yes, I should chill for a day. But please note, I have what, three admins? responding to me in real time on my own talk page. I haven't read the new ANI yet, entirely. I'm feeling overwhelmed too, but agreed, two wrongs don't make a right. Pete St.John 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have framed the process as a "fight", which suggests trading blows. That worries me.

Have I satisfactorily explained my position that some of us feel rail-roaded by the deletion? If not I'll try to explain it better, but assuming so, that rail-roading is part of what I consider to be in the nature of a "fight". A debate that has varied from civil and rational discourse, which I appreciate you and others are trying to preserve. So yes, IMO there is a fight, and I will endeavor to struggle ethically. And certainly my struggle is open, I answer all questions addressed to me, I admit mistakes. Pete St.John 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus means neither unanimity nor a majority vote nor monarchy. Given the fuzzy nature of the idea, bobbles are inevitable. Clearly, however, reaching consensus requires more listening than speaking. You have presented your views, and they have been heard; others must be afforded the same opportunity. --KSmrq^T 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but I would note that certain parties have vividly taken plenty opportunity already, not just me. Pete St.John 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire incident has been unfortunate. You didn't realize that canvassing is frowned upon, and not enough effort was made to inform you before the ANI thread was started. I think that the incident will pass quickly if everyone just lets it drop. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I attempted to, but the user resisted. That said, yes, it would be nice to see this whole thing behind us. - jc37 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to keep further canvassing within the guidlines. For example, I would not have thought to "notify" the opposition voters wihout having read the guide you pointed me to. I'm certainly doing all I can, but I would appreciate it if you would concede at least that I modified my behaviour in response to your warning (maybe not enough). Pete St.John 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion overturned

Have a nice weekend! --Ramsey2006 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now the overturn (and the whole debate) has been rescinded because of canvassing. What a mess. --KSmrq^T 07:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Just to be clear, you are largely responsible, by trying to "fight" and rally support, even in the face of admonitions to the contrary. I realize some of the feedback came too late, but please learn from this experience and don't behave this way again. I can hardly emphasize enough just how counterproductive it is, not just to Wikipedia and its mathematics community, but to your cause. --KSmrq^T 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice

My advice at this point is that you just make your points on the page of the new DRV. I would also suggest that any comments that you make be made at the first level (ie: at the bottom of the discussion without indentation). Don't let yourself be baited into a back and forth with either SparsityProblem or BrownHairedGirl. (Note that I have not replied to BHG's indented response to me. If I do feel the need to reply to a particular point of either of them, I will do so as a comment at the first level, without indentation.) The tactics of both of them seems to be to attempt to fill whatever page the discussion is occuring on with an everywhere dense set of repeditive comments. No point in doing anything that will help to facilitate that strategy.

I also suggest that nobody be notified individually of this new DRV. I did put a notice on the wikipedia logic project talk page and the talk page of the 3rd CfD discussion, and the math project has been notified. But I have avoided even notifying you of the overturning of the overturn after my initial note, figuring that you would find out on your own when you get back, and to avoid any accusations from BHG or Sparsity.

At this point, I would think that any closing admin would be well aware of the existence of previous discussions in the previous DRV, the 3 CfD's and the discussion on the talk page of the 3rd CfD. User:Kbdank71 himself has rather amusingly and ironically pointed out himself a rather blatant flaw in one of his own stated reasons for deleting the categories without consensus here: [1] This has not escaped notice, as several comments on the page seem to be making reference to it, some more directly than others. --Ramsey2006 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have alot of experience with flamewars (and I like to think, that as in a fight, I don't like to start them but I do like to finish them) but not in this venue, so honestly I appreciate it. I will probably be more overt than typical here, but I intend to build my case with all due attention to wiki guidelines, and your advice deepens my understanding of precedent and tradtion here, if not specific policies, and that's a huge help.
I would point out, for example, Nat's "flip flop". First, I believe what he did is very plausible; the lopsided "vote", and the lopsided logic, presented a vivid opportunity for a newcomer to act (to overturn). Then the quick response against too soon closing the debate was, at least in part, correct as well, and brought subtlties to his attention, so he reversed himself. His then creating a new debate, instead of reopening the old one, was IMO incorrect, as it had been noted (by other admins) that leaving the debate open for awhile would ameliorate anything that might have been inappropriate about my campaigning. (I agree wholeheartedly with that, even to the extent of allowing the opposition to counter-campaign with wiki-legalistic methods, because ultimately a definitive conclusion can be reached.) So once again the plain, conspicous consensus in favor of keeping the category has been overruled by admin fiat. The math project page plainly shows exasperation at the incessant attack, which has been going on long before me, and expresses the expectation that "the crazies will win" just because people are getting sick of rebutting it. This I think is a much broader problem than the category itself, or my concern for my own reputation. Anyway I meant to say, with this point, that Nat is an example of an objective, outside admin not doing the right thing, but getting hornswaggled by the Legalists. (I believe I'm free to speak freely here on my talk page, correct?).
I'm still concerned with the Erdos Number Category and I will do what I reasonably can to promote it.
I'm concerned with my reputation. I don't have much of one yet, before this flamewar I had hardly 500 edits, but I have one left over from other venues, and it's important to me, if not anyone else. I will accept that I made mistakes in terms of stated wiki guidelines, but I will not tolerate the impuation that I ignored those guidelines after being apprised of them, or that I have done anything unethical. I openly answer all questions addressed to me and I openly concede mistakes when and if I understand them, and I try very hard not to merely ignore good arguements against me (as the opposition does).
I'm concerned with the process of what I'll call wiki-legalistic, Activist Streamlining, plainly going against consensus. The attack has been polarizing, eristic demagoguery evading, not building, consensus, and it's perceived by it's victims as winning (despite, what, 5 votes plainly in favor of keeping the category, and/or overturning the deletion of the category? maybe only 4 to date concluded. It's just overwhelming. I've been here before.)
I'm not so concerned about the 5th, or 6th, vote, because I plan to bring arbitration. I don't plan on doing this hurriedly. But I need for all three points to be resolved satisfactorily: saving the category, protecting my reputation personally, and something to restrain the process which evades consensus. I believe Arbitration will be appropriate, as opposed to mediation, because there is no single person to mediate against; but I may be wrong, I'll have to read some mediatons, and some arbitrations, and some guides regarding those two processes. But since there are three issues, and the opposition is so plainly influential and effective in their technique, I believe arbitration will be necessary and warranted. But I'll build my case first, and I will open opportunities for reasonably broad peer-review first.
I deeply regret the flamewar and I can't sufficiently thank anyone, on either side, earnestly trying to keep up with it. My own tone has at times revealed exasperation. However, I flatly refuse responsibilty for the flamewar. There is a clear case for steam-rollering (which I have yet to satisfactorily build in terms of wiki guidelines, but that is my intent) and the vicitms clearly have an ethical right to defense, even I've conducted my part of that defense incorrectly in some senses on some points. I don't expect to be right about everything, but my ethics may not be impugned and I am, indeed, personally angry (not at you of course!). Pete St.John 23:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good behavior

(copied from User talk:KSmrq to keep thread here)

Thanks for notifying me that after the Deletion Review was overturned, it was then rescinded. I appreciate all the recent advice about what I was doing wrong, but in the face of this scale (and energy) of attack, I really could use advice about what I am permitted to do to defend against this attack. For example, can I, or should I, ask for arbitration? I can't believe that I'm not allowed to seek help, but must wait for others to notice I need it. And I do mean me personally, now I have to defend myself, not just the mathematician user community. Pete St.John 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, not to worry; the worst that could have happened from the ANI was a block from further participation in that particular DRV. There was no threat to your life, your health, your family, your property, your career, or even your long-term involvement with Wikipedia. Many observers believe Wikipedia is a crazy enterprise from top to bottom, and I suspect they're right. Sometimes good things happen, often nutty things happen, and at times it's not clear which is which. To illustrate: A few years ago when I tried to explain the craziness to someone who thought his grants might be threatened by what Wikipedia said about him, he got a letter published in the Los Angeles Times accusing me of supporting mob rule; then he created his own 'pedia!

Second, attitude can help. Some editors recommend a detached attitude, as in WP:DGAF. That may be too Zen for you. Still, I humbly suggest that thoughout life it is wise to be involved, doing the best we can to achieve our goals, without becoming so invested that we can only accept the outcome we seek, and to pursue our goals with as playful a spirit as we can muster.

Third, Wikipedia really is a community, and you need never feel you are alone without support. At the simplest level, you can ask an individual like me for guidance or intervention. The mathematics community has many experienced editors who have successfully dealt with some pretty heated conflicts; we even have two mathematicians on Wikipedia's formal Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. So a second level is to ask at WT:WPM, to say, "I've got this situation, what is my best course of action?" Beyond that, we have pages of help for dispute resolution. Options include formally requesting comments, asking for mediation, requesting a mentor, and (if all else fails) seeking arbitration.

As for this particular situation, no action is necessary. The Erdős number categories have come up for deletion before, and we have plenty of experienced eyes on the problem. Many of us have suggested that the close was improper, and I believe the case is so clear-cut that we will prevail; in fact, we would have already if not for your actions. User BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) complained that your behavior with respect to the DRV was improper and unhelpful, and as you have seen, indeed your actions backfired. In my view, some of her behavior, including filing an incident report, was excessive; she has been rebuffed at ANI.

Previously I've tried to explain a little about the DRV process. Perhaps it would help if I explain a little about the ANI. The idea of that notice board is to alert admins to any serious incident in progress that might require urgent admin intervention. It is not a place to file petty grievances. BrownHairedGirl felt you were pressing your thumb on the scales of justice in the DRV, and acting out of control. You were officially told to chill. Others, like me, advised the same thing. You did chill. End of story.

As for the DRV, those who insist on responding to every statement they disagree with, posting over and over, usually do themselves a disservice. In this case three editors especially distinguished themselves in this way; two of them supported the deletion, and then there was you. Rather than helping the cause of proper procedure and sane closure, you joined the crazies. Let's call it temporary insanity and put it behind us. That DRV is concluded, scrapped as inconclusive.

In my view, you were never personally attacked. Not at the DRV, not at the ANI, not on your talk page, not anywhere else visible. Your views were disputed, and your behavior was criticized — perhaps correctly and fairly, perhaps not. BrownHairedGirl complained that my "crazies" remark was a personal attack; she could hardly have justified attacking you. Honestly, no defense was — or is — necessary.

That said, if you stick around long enough you will be attacked. When that happens, I urge you to read the help pages I mentioned. You will find a wealth of options for acceptable responses. --KSmrq^T 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. The above is helpful, good light/heat ratio, and almost warm in tone. I think I'm being reminded of the existence of third sides, people who aren't merely partisan either way but still have something relevant to add.

First, I direct your attention to my reply, above, to Ramsey2006. There are more issues to me than the salvation of the category, itself. I intend arbitration, but I emphasize I will pursue this slowly, building a wiki-guidelines-aware case first, and giving everyone plenty of opportunity to rebut me or talk me out of it. But there are more than the one issue, for me, to be satisfactorily resolved.

There are some things you might like to know about me; I have been called self-aggrandizing by Pavel Curtis in the context of flamewars that predate WWW (early 90's, I don't mean HTTP hadn't been invented yet, but telnet was normal then, not browsing). I am highly intolerant of assertive bubbleheads; as Rommel said (paraphrasing), people can be smart or stupid, and they can be ambitious or lazy; the stupid and ambitious ones are dangerous, and I get rid of them. Also I can be just incredibly stubborn. Wiki guidelines are not the only guidelines to me. However, I mean to be ethical and, in public matters, open.

I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. The advice from you and Ramsey2006 gives me pause and will at the very least better inform the case I build (slowly) for (hypothetical) arbitration. Thank you. Pete St.John 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived ANI

Jc37, I see at the archived ANI concerning me, that

After reading all of the above, the user's talk page, (and more), I've given the user a warning that he may be blocked for the duration of the DRV, if he continues. I think by now enough "notice" has been given, and this has strayed quite far into "disruptive territory". - jc37 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct that you archived the ANI item at this point, and your final comment is in the nature of "closing"? I'll be trying to work out the chronology of: warning me about campaigning, my responses (at each stage), warning me about banning, the opening of the ANI, admin actions on the Deletion Reviews, and this ANI getting archived with that conclusion. Roughly, all this happened withing a period of four days. I'm watching this page but you are welcome to move this to my page according to your preference. Thanks, Pete St.John 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. I did not archive the discussion on the AN/I page. I merely left a notice for others about the warning here.

I don't think I need make further comment at this point (hopefully). There are enough editors attempting to offer you advice as to how to better acclimate yourself to Wikipedia, and how to positively contribute, with the expressed hope of avoiding further disruption. - jc37 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This is a cross-posting with my own talk page:

Hi Pete, I'll answer your question down here. My job in closing a DRV is to evaluate the consensus at the DRV, not to make independent judgments about what happened at the XfD. At the DRV, the consensus was that the issues needed more discussion, and they are receiving it at the relisted CfD. Reading beyond the bold-faced commentary, there was also a consensus that Erdos numbers were probably "trivial", though I acknowledged in my closure that full evidence had not been brought to bear on that question. At the DRV, on the basis of strength of arguments, there was also a consensus that the original deletion should not be overturned wholesale. There are several reasons for this last conclusion: Brownhairedgirl's excellent arguments regarding the proper purpose of categorization went largely unrebutted, various folks favoring overturning did so only partially (with reference to some, but not all, of the Erdos numbers), and others appeared to favor overturning only in the interest of further discussion, an opportunity which they received through the limited relisting. Considering all these factors, there simply was not a consensus to overturn the deletions altogether, leaving them in place and endorsed. There was a consensus for a limited relisting of the kind provided.

I can't speak to what the DRV says specifically about Kbdank's closure in any more detail. This particular DRV was very much "forward-looking" (as in, "what do we do now?"), rather than backward-looking (ie., let's scrutinize every detail of the XfD.) This can happen when several commenters propose "out-of-box" alternative solutions (eg., "endorse deletion, but listify".) The discussion does not focus on the particulars of the past, but looks for solutions in the future. That is my reading of what happened here, and it resulted in my close. I consider the close a solid compromise, allowing both sides of the dispute acknowledgment of their valid points, and doing the best to make the content useful and suitable to all.

One piece of advice, as a long-time ArbCom watcher: You'll want to pursue an RfC first. Otherwise, any request is likely to be dismissed as untimely. I certainly took notice of Arbitrator August's comment, by the way; I'm sure he would concede that his word is no more special than other Wikipedians' on content issues, and I'd expect he will see the merit in the compromise closure, whether or not he agrees with it fully. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, cross-posted:

You're absolutely correct, Pete, to suggest that numerical support can have varying importance. In cases where policy is clear, only good arguments will succeed, irrespective of numbers. In cases where there is no over-arching policy, numerical support can have more meaning. You'd do well, Pete, to stick to your own case (and I never heard back from you on those issues), and not to confuse two cases, since (by your own admission), you don't really know what Melodia is talking about. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks I answered at your Talk. I will have to thin out my watchlist, whoo-boy, so thanks for noting here. Pete St.John (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I have no specific questions for you... I simply would have expected a relevant reply before a tangential one, but -- this being a wiki -- you are free to comment as you wish, more or less. Good luck with the RfAr -- if it is accepted, it will certainly be trail-blazing and unprecedented, and I'd look forward to the result. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity was never my strong point

Thanks v much for your kind note on my talk page, which I missed in the deluge. I started to write a quick reply, but since I'm not much good at brevity, it ended up being rather a long one. If you have a spare week or two, you might like to take a peep: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#One_small_concilliatory_note.

Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rep: Your reverting of my edit

Hi Pete, I can provide detailed information (with citations) of the application of Genetic Algorithms in hardware bug finding. However, I am working full time and currently very busy, this means I'll be able to come back to this issue on the weekend. Meanwhile, why not keep my edit and tag it with "citation needed"?. Thanks.---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, he provided the citation before I caught up, and all is good. Pete St.John (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Thank you for your advice and interesting discussion. I have read your input on GA and very imprest, it's nice to meat some one how seems to like it as much as I do :) GA Fantastic (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

In your response to the Quackwatch RfC, you made a suggestion to use original research in the Quackwatch article. It's a strange recommendation, don't you think? Antelan ^talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at his Talk page, asking for something more specific. I don't know what he means. The remark presumably refers to this item at the Talk:Quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of 19:41 is your second revert. Your edit of 18:50 counts as a revert, as drive-by tagging is not vandalism. I don't think you're in serious danger of 3RR, but we might as well keep an accurate count. (And although I think Levine2112 was a little premature in awarding the Barnstar of Peace, if the peace holds up for a few days, I'd like to countersign.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I hereby award the Barnstar of Peace to PeterStJohn who helped negotiate a hopefully peaceful resolution to a longstanding debate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quackwatch

I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this [2]. You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll consider refactoring per above: [3]. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we seek a third-party to help? I'm disappointed by the edits you made to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad, after I made the comment above. It appears you're no longer discussing the issues with me per WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again, if you cite specifics, I can address them. Overbroad generalizations are too easy to brush off as insinuations which of course is not what you intend. However, the edits that disappoint you are in my userspace, not in an article. Please feel free to point out a specific thing that violates a specific policy. Also, feel free to bring in more people, although I wonder at the term "third" party, as there seem to be more than three already. And no, I don't mean to ignore you, but ScienceApologist is posting much faster, and more conspicuously, e.g. at the ANI he brought, which you may wish to follow. So lacking specifics to address, I'm busier elsewhere. And yeah, I'll copy this to your talk. Pete St.John (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to refactor a comment per WP:TALK. You made no response. Then I found that you're making notes about me about concerns that you have made no attempt to discuss with me. Are third parties involved in any of these comments? None that I see. Are you too busy to address these issues? Seems to me that if you have time to make all those notes in your userspace, you have some time. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove and apologize for the following, "I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive" and "(over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious)".

I suggest you delete your /ScratchPad notes about me, and discuss the matters with me instead. I hope this is specific enough for you. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for help

Where did you receive this appeal for help that you refer to? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur has been involved with alt medicine articles for some time, so I don't think it was the same place. Anyway, I look forward to finding out where it was. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I accuse you of tendentious editing?

As you claim here, it would be nice if you provided the diff. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a problem with me

But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. However, this is Wikipedia and criticisms of people's ideas and attempts happen all the time. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. I note that you had no way of knowing that the consensus was fake as you did not know the personalities or the sides involved at the time. You seem to make a singular point that people should be aware that QW is not peer-reviewed because QW discusses peer-review itself: however, such a criticism is not good for Wikipedia unless it can be directly sourced. I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot or some other blog-forum. That seems to fly in the face of all sourcing conventions at Wikipedia You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that you make accusations (veiled or otherwise) faster than I can address them. This is the fastest-paced controversy I've been in so far, although others have had bad days.

1. Citing a reference for my claim that you accused me of tendentious editting. I overgeneralized the word; using it to characterize your characterization of me. So I'm trying to go through QW talk to piece together specifics, then explain myself at the ANI with them. One might note, that "I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot" could be construed as implying my contribution was contrary to wiki policy, an example of what I overgeneralized as "tendentious" (when really I was thinking "contentious", btw). You may have had a good point there.

2. Citing a reference to the "request for help" I mentioned. It's this RFC. You may notice that my first edit to QW:talk was in the section labelled "A user has requested...".

3. Are you accusing me of being an alt-med-POV pusher?

4. I do, in fact, know why I have problems with you. (By knowledge I refer to sporadic proximate causes, in your editting, which I am working to document; I only have hypotheses about your philosophy or raison detre). I'm working on documenting it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Okay. I actually do not find you to be tendentious at all (or even really that contentious). I do find you to be a bit "overzealous", but I myself have the same problem so WP:KETTLE applies here. I don't have any problem with your edit styles nor would I want to see you subject to any sanctions. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and while you may not be completely familiar with the vagueries of sourcing, neutrality, and fringe theory guidelines, this is not your fault at all. I hope I did not come across as biting hard because I really do value your input at Talk:Quackwatch. I just have a problem with some of your ideas as to why, how, and what content to include. I didn't think that this warranted extreme dispute resolution escalation, however. I thought we would probably iron out these issues as time went by. We can talk about them now if you wish, but this numbered point is getting too long as it is.
Thanks for that. I appreciate knowing how far-flung this controversy has become!
Absolutely not.
I would appreciate it if you would post your documentation directly to my talkpage so that we can discuss matters.

Cheers,

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two ANI in rapid succession against "pro alt-med POV pushers", so I think we will be discussing this at great length there, more than each other's talk pages. Particularly this vs Levine2112 looks like the focus of a big fight; I cannot type fast enough to keep up, and I type pretty fast. Pete St.John (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I replied directly to your scratch pad. I hope you realize that those two AN/I were not in any way directed at you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that I'm standing up for the for the folks you did target with them. Pete St.John (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to do that, you're perfectly free to. That may have consequences down the line. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QW

I have restated the different versions in a section at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No action was taken. That AN/I just faded away. On a separate action, ScienceApologist got banned for 72 hours. [4]Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on the peer-review/counterpoint interpretation debate occuring just a few lines below your recent comments on the QW talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the review is a positive review. Please consider the following section, which I think you may have missed. [5]Anthon01 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar minutiae at average

A example where "to represent" ≠ to "be representative of": in a logic formula a tilde may represent negation, but it is not representative of negation. Although there is overlap in the meanings, I see the following difference when an entity represents / is representative of a group. The adjective "representative" followed by "of" suggests that the entity representing the group somehow typifies it. This is especially clear when an entity is said not to be representative of a group. This suggestion is not present, or much less so, when a form of the verb "to represent" is used.

The combination "If [hypothesis], then [consequence]", all in the indicative mood, is standard use in mathematical discourse, and generally completely accepted (except by you). The subjunctive "were" signals a counterfactual (as opposed to merely hypothetical) situation; its use for a non-counterfactual protasis is often regarded as ungrammatical; see Subjunctive#To express a hypothesis. The word "if" neutrally introduces a protasis; "when" unnecessarily suggests a temporal aspect and is definitely much less usual in mathematical discourse. --Lambiam 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary has: "A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function." Do you feel it would help to replace "to be representative of" by "to typify"? I don't think this verb has a clear connotation of membership. --Lambiam 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring

This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: [6] --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspended replying to Ronz, cf this at my scratchpad. Pete St.John (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Are you saying that you are refusing to take any action because I'm making the request? Should I then ask for another editor to get involved? --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you stated how frustrated and angry you get when working on the Barrett articles and you have only been doing it for a brief time. Other editors have been for quite awhile and some of us have limited or stopped posting to any of them do to the problems. I think if you go back and see how Ronz has been in the fray for a long time and how his patience got worn down, maybe you will understand better. The articles have been highjacked in a way, with editors getting the articles protected for really minor things. I for one stopped for a long time do to attacks on anything I said. Please read the archives to get a better idea of the history of things. Of course this is just a suggestion, happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and I'll reply at your Talk). I think it's extremely important, when defending science against non-science, that we not stoop to fighting fire with fire; because what we are defending, science, comprises the very tools of good arguement: logic, observation, accuracy, verifiability, etc. I don't doubt for a minute that lots of crackpots (from pseudo-science naifs to outright con-artists) swell the Loyal Opposition (alternative-medicine optimists/sympathizers/practioners, some of whom are contributory and not anti-science) but if our frustration turns us into crackpots, nobody wins. If all the pro-science editors are calm, patient, stern (as needed), but always fair, we (or they) will win. But never totally, there will always be more. There will always be more science, there will always be more data that doesn't fit well with existing theories, there will always be refinements and improvements, there will always be setbacks, and there will always be crackpots. We need to take it in stride. I'm not unsympathetic to Ronz, I just can't (and no longer) address him. Pete St.John (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are refusing to engage in DR, I'll take it to an outside party.

I'm not here to join some battle "defending science against non-science." I'm here to make Wikipedia better. This is not a place for crusades, real or imagined. See WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know that I responded on my page talk about mine or your comments here. I just want to let you know in case you do not have me on your watch page. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your scratch pad

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I really didn't mean to change your page, I thought I was at QW page at the time and I guess I didn't go back to the page when I linked to yours to see what it was about. Thanks for pointing it out. If I do bloopers of any kind please don't ever hesitate in letting me know. I take suggestion and info too so I don't repeat and/or I get more opinions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please consider refactoring

Please consider refactoring: [7] --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to reply, I'll refactor it myself per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tyring the wikiquette mechanism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStJohn (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Inappropriate forum for discussion

I've removed your comment as canvassing [8]. Further, it is an inappropriate forum for discussing other editor's behavior. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again as harassment and canvassing, given that you've already received and acknowledged the note above. Please stop this behavior. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've added it back again, despite my comments above. I've sought help. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you've added it again, indicating you're counting your edits to avoid a 3RR block [9].

Given you specifically asked for another editor to step in, why did you restore it yet again? --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's a fair question, and a legitimate complaint. My intent was for an impersonal editor, but I didn't specify that. Be that as it may, I consider my three reverts to be used up, so SA can delete again. I'm not responding at your Talk for the reasons given, and that evidently you are watching here. Pete St.John (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add a note to the discussion this time, after reverting ScienceApologist's edit, but instead asked Anthon01 to help instead so you could avoid a 3RR block [10]. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed, apparently wrongly, that SA is who you meant when you said you were seeking help; and that by my count, he could just revert and the two of you would be ahead of me in mere revert counts. But anyway my own reverts are (we'll agree) used up, so he and whatever help is otw have a free hand, modulo whatever actual independent oversight may or may not exist. Meanwhile, you can answer at the wikiquette item, or point, there, to a discussion page where you'd like to debate this or anything, other than my space, which bugs me. I want not to talk to you. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't want to talk to me, but you're talking about me in very inappropriate manner, even going so far as to edit-war over your need to talk about me, counting your edits so you avoid 3RR. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent malicious rhetoric would explain both why I don't want to talk to Ronz, and why he's hard to avoid. The right place for it is the complex process that seems to begin with Wikiquette and move as needed towards RfA. Ronz can post his rebuttals or whatever, there. Pete St.John (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You received some very good feedback through your WQA complaint. I suggest you consider it all very, very carefully. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm sure I'll get to it as I parse my Watchlist, despite your spam here. I'm asking you to stay out of my user space. Start an ANI, ask for mediation, refute me on aritcle discussion pages; you have wiki-politic avenues for whatever your impulses are. Pete St.John (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to avoid interacting with you, but I reserve the right to respond to your comments and otherwise treat you like any other editor. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, chill out

I've seen many editors go down the road you're currently on and none of them have come out better for it. You need to chill out and either engage in discussion or completely disengage from the situation or you will find yourself being punished by administrators. If you find the idea of talking with User:Ronz intolerable, I suggest simply removing all references you ever made to him in your user space and elsewhere and delete all discussions you had with him. Try beginning from scratch and letting bygones be bygones if you can. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your advice as both well-intentioned, and informed from experience; however, no, I won't delete the stuff in my user space that I gathered explicitly for the purpose of evidence regarding improper conduct; and second, I think the burden is on Ronz to stop writing to my user space, and present well-reasoned (or poorly reasoned) arguements in article discussion space, or bring an ANI. I've stated that I can't deal with him personally any more, and giving him what he wants (deleting all references to him) rewards what I argue is his bad behaviour. So we're stuck with some form of mediation. Starting with the low-grade wikiquette thing seems reasonable to me. Pete St.John (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter. Just hold on, I will see what I can do. You run the risk of being blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. I'm a big advocate against superficial wikilegalism camoflaging eristic and repetitive and otherwise unethical rhetoric, and I'm willing to take risks. There's just too much of that shit, it's pernicious and much harder to cope with than mere vandalism. It's ok if they delete the notice, it's in the history and the wording (re neutrality, harassment, and canvassing) can be judged by others later. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just consider this a 3RR warning, meant in a spirit of cooperation. FYI, braking the spirit of 3RR can be cause for being blocked. I have made the mistake of thinking 3RR means I can revert 3 times, and found myself blocked. Wikipeding is an "on the job learning" experience. Perhaps you can learn from my mistake. Anthon01 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that I played faired than Ronz; my notification was compliant with policy, Ronz deleted citing a policy, I revert and cited the policy specific with which I was compliant. So to me, up to that point, it wasnn't edit warring, just drilling into the details (and purpose) of the policies. His next delete was IMO contrary to policy and not excusable. My subsequent revert was to oblige him to "use up" his, so that a third party would have to intervene, which would be progress. So I stand by my adherence to both the letter and intent of 3RR (but I have to admit I lost my temper awhile ago). Unfortunately, it seems SA was not the intended "help" Ronz mentioned. Perhaps you should delete the notification yourself, partly in the spirit of compromise (undeserved frankly but...) and partly out of (at least partial) agreement with them that I pushed 3RR too hard. I really wish a 3rd party, that is, someone from outside the QW morass, would pitch in. But that's why I'm here in the first place, because of the RfC, so it seems an infinite regress of outsiders becoming embroigled and needing outsiders. Very curious mess. Pete St.John (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the notice should be removed. I think you were justified in putting the notice there. But I could be wrong. I could be accused of edit warring if I remove you edit. So I won't touch it. I alerted two admins to the problem and requested their assistance. This often apples here at WP, "There is no reality, only the perception of reality." Your tally count could be interpreted in more than one way. Anthon01 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider adding this incident to your complaint. Anthon01 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did when it first happened, the item "PostScript". I think no reason to add that the third party let it stay, that's in the history and we don't know how it will turn out. Ronz hasn't rebutted yet. Pete St.John (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the confusion over Ronz's statement that he was getting help? Anthon01 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some reverts, Ronz posted to my talk that he was getting help, and shortly afterward SA reverted (sparing Ronz 3RR). So I assumed that by "help" he meant SA. And imaginably SA could be construed as a partisan (ahem). However, it would seem that Ronz meant, really, outside help, and actually urged (at SA's talk) SA not to revert war with me (on account of SA's rulings). So my assumption that I would be reverted (by SA), and I'd be run out (by 3RR), was not quite right, which made me feel bad that I'd reverted a second editor (even though he's a partisan) and provoked me to contact you. So it's a relief to have an actual 3rd party speak up. Pete St.John (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recommendation

Please consider withdrawing the RFC/U, and talk with others about the situation instead. You're overlooking some very, very good advice from your WQA by escalating the situation with an RFC/U. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first, your continued insitence on writing to my talk, which is the subject of my complaint, at least proves you refuse to honor the request not to write to my talk. I'm sure you'll defend your view somewhere other than my Talk, e.g. the RfC, which will expect a response from you. Second, talk to Seicer about it, it wasn't my idea to make an RfC. The Wikiquette item has gotten no useful response that I've noticed, other than the recommdation to escalate. Pete St.John (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! I am treating you as I would any editor, as I said I would. This is the first and most important place to discuss your behavior, and to communicate with you. Sorry that you don't like this fact about Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way you treat every editor. Some get a pass and some get kindly civil discourse. Anthon01 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the best course for you to take. Is their a place where the complaint can be viewed? Is the link you provide it? I didn't notice it on the candidate section of the RFC/U page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the instructions for the RfC were not explicit about where to create the item; in the subsection on user-RfC's, it emphasizes the case and the presentation of the case, and I found no clear exposition of the mechanics. Presumably if it needs to be moved somewhere, that will be done by someone who knows the procedure better. The actual case is in the Wikiquette, which I cite at the beginning of the RfC, not wanting to either move or copy it. Maybe transcluding but I don't know how that would jell with archiving later etc. As to whether this is the best course: it's not at all what I wanted. That's why I created the Wikiquette. But the only feedback we got from the wikiquette, is that the item is too complex and so needs to be escalated. Ronz's view seems to be the opposite, that it's so simple it can be handled on my Talk, even though the basis of my complaint is that he's harassing me on my Talk. Pete St.John (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenious

I take exception to this diffless edit. The "disingenious" remark is baseless. I am completely uninvolved in the dispute with Ronz about which you posted at WQA and I am almost uninvolved in the QW article (as anyone will tell you who has been around on that article's talk page for the last couple of months I generally avoid it like the plague due to its bizarre editing atmosphere). The rest of this edit only shows you don't know what WP:DR is. You may want to remove the edit (the discussion being closed does not mean you can't retract anything). Avb 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remark applies to your prior collaboration with various of the disputants (particularly Ronz) and others involved (such as ScienceApologist, who had recently been banned over related issues), on the basis of my having misconstrued your remark ("almost" univolved) to have been something of a concession on that point (but you meant the article, not the disputants). Since there are a million (whatever) editors, I'd consider "an outside third party" to be someone not already collaborating with a disputant. Also you aren't professing to be objective, but only to be not very involved in the article, so I'd concede that. If you'd like me to elaborate the remark ("disingenuous") with the clarification that you do not purport to be objective (which others besides myself may have taken to be the connotation), then feel free to ammend yourself (though I don't think that's exactly what you have in mind). And yes indeed, it's a bizarre editting atmosphere, I'm surely run ragged by it, but IMO "disingenuous" is neither so inflammatory, nor so indefensible, to retract flatly. Pete St.John (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 519: / Line 519: @@
 ==Disingenious==
 I take exception to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=183205134 this diffless edit]. The "disingenious" remark is baseless. I am ''completely uninvolved'' in the dispute with Ronz about which you posted at WQA and I am ''almost uninvolved'' in the QW article (as anyone will tell you who has been around on that article's talk page for the last couple of months I generally avoid it like the plague due to its bizarre editing atmosphere). The rest of this edit only shows you don't know what [[WP:DR]] is. You may want to remove the edit (the discussion being closed does not mean you can't retract anything). [[User_talk:Avb|Avb]] 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
+: The remark applies to your prior collaboration with various of the disputants (particularly Ronz) and others involved (such as ScienceApologist, who had recently been banned over related issues), on the basis of my having misconstrued your remark ("almost" univolved) to have been something of a concession on that point (but you meant the article, not the disputants). Since there are a million (whatever) editors, I'd consider "an outside third party" to be someone not already collaborating with a disputant. Also you aren't professing to be objective, but only to be not very involved in the article, so I'd concede that. If you'd like me to elaborate the remark ("disingenuous") with the clarification that you do not purport to be objective (which others besides myself may have taken to be the connotation), then feel free to ammend yourself (though I don't think that's exactly what you have in mind). And yes indeed, it's a bizarre editting atmosphere, I'm surely run ragged by it, but IMO "disingenuous" is neither so inflammatory, nor so indefensible, to retract flatly. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn#top|talk]]) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)