User talk:Filll/subpage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Contents 1 dilution math corrections 2 Nylon Bug 3 Old weight systems 4 Your participation requested 5 My current position on the Moulton unblock/unban 6 A suggestion 7 Disappointed 8 NTWW 9 Wikicookie 10 Help on Thomas G. Barnes 11 NTWW 12 Imagination award 13 AGF Challenge at RfA 14 Emails about a current RfA 15 Arbitration 16 ANI on CorticoSpinal 17 NTWW video episodes 18 Announcement 19 A public statement about the DMHO RfA 20 Skype? 21 Noah's Ark

[edit] dilution math corrections

Just a remainder in case you forgot, I'm still waiting on Talk:Homeopathy that you tell me how my dilution math is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that it is. I will get back to you when I get a spare moment. I have lots of other calculations to do.-- Filll (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you were busy on other talk pages. I just wanted to check my math before demolishing Peter Morrell's claims that the pheromones concentrations are actually are low. I think that most of the concentrations he talked about were between 2C and 3C, and there are problems about dogs breathing many liters of air, so they are sampling a lot more molecules (I need to check how many molecules a cubic meter of air has, and how much air a dog breathes) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Back of the envelope gives 1.1872 * 10²³ molecules in a deep breath. This assumes 1.2 g/L density (air at sea level) and 100% nitrogen (not bad, and a smaller source of error than the next assumption) with 4.6 L vital capacity (good for a 70 kg human). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nylon Bug

Someone already started it, and it's got substantial content. :) Elecmahm (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old weight systems

I have collected a lot more information to extend the article on apothecaries' weight. I am still working on it, but you might be interested in what I have already in my sandbox. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I really appreciate it. I am poking around looking into miscibility calculations using Euler relations. To really do this reasonably accurately, one has to do quite a bit of real mathematics and real science, which is somewhat surprising. However, I think when it is done properly, we will have produced the most accurate contribution ever to this area; far more accurate than anything else I have seen in the literature. Plus learned a tiny bit too.--Filll (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My current position on the Moulton unblock/unban

For my current personal position, see User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only had a cursory look into the Moulton ordeal, and I know you and I have had some slight disagreements in the past, but I wanted to comment on something you wrote:

If any restrictions against Moulton are to be lifted, I would suggest that it would be most prudent to, at a minimum, (1) do so with the clear understanding that Moulton only be allowed to edit solely in areas in which Moulton has no WP:COI difficulties such as Picard's biography, or ideological agendas, such as in the areas of evolution, creationism and intelligent design (2) avoid extremely sensitive topics like WP:BLP (3) be required to submit to an extended period of mentorship, with the understanding that if the mentor is unable to control him or unwilling to supervise him properly, that Moulton's editing privileges be restricted (4) Moulton be required to follow community norms of behavior including the following of Wikipedia principles like the WP:Five pillars (5) demonstrate that he can function and cooperate on Wikipedia productively and have those he works with attest to this fact or else have his privileges restricted again, by default.

I think much of this is reasonable and logical. 3, 4, and 5 are no brainers. 1 and 2 are a bit squishier (I too would restrict him from editing areas where he has a conflict of interest (the Picard article, for example), but would allow him to work on other living people's articles under the appropriate policies, and perhaps on the ideological articles as well (maybe restricting him to proposing any changes on talk pages)). But on the whole, I just wanted to say thank you for taking a calm and open approach to this. Mahalo, Filll. --Ali'i 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People get so wrapped up in ideological advocacy, and paint others as unreasonable or monsters or whatever. If they just look to see what we are suggesting, they will see we just want to follow the principles of Wikipedia as closely as possible. There is no demand for revenge or to smear anyone. Oh well...--Filll (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Filll, I saw your question on Fritzpoll's RfA. I was about to comment there but... eegads... I co-nominated him, it would probably be improper to get too involved within the RfA. Do you think it might be easier, and more reasonable, and more useful, for everyone if you yourself picked one or two questions from your challenge? Even with your multiple choice option, it could take hours upon hours to properly analyze the situations and consider all the mini-questions within questions. I understand your good intent, but I just think it is unlikely that most viewing the RfA will go through and read all of your questions and then all of his responses. It's just a bit much. I of course know they are optional, and so does Fritzpoll, but I actually think your questions could be usefull to RfA evaluations... just maybe eased in a little slower, so the community can digest it. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I think multiple choice is not too onerous, but then I am pretty experienced in these situations at this point. When I discuss them with other editors who are experienced in controversial article editing, they also are able to give very quick rational and detailed answers immediately, but that is a matter of experience. People who are not experienced are pretty overwhelmed I think. But that is the whole point of these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises: to expose people that are unfamiliar with the controversial articles to this deeply troublesome area on Wikipedia. I will suggest he pick two of his choosing. How is that? Of course, as you note, these are purely optional.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I think Fritzpoll will be fine answering any of the 8, I guess it was more of a time thing, and as I said above, I'm just not sure most who are evaluating him will read all 8 questions. Then some might start discussing answers... others are too lazy to click on the links, etc. Suggesting he pick 2 sounds fine to me. But of course I am a co-nom... so you should still do whatever you think is best. :)) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If he wants to do it, that is fine. If he is pressed for time, that is ok too. I understand of course. They are supposed to be fun and challenging and entertaining. If they are misery, then they are not serving much purpose.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that you changed it, but I'm confused with something else now. Shouldn't he be answering the questions within the actual RfA page? You say to link to his answers, that's not the normal practice. Really, optimally, whatever questions he chooses to answer should be also pasted in to the RfA, regardless of size. When the RfA closes, people know not to ammend it, but if Fritz were answering elsewhere, it would be harder to later look back on his RfA in a single place. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well two or three RfA candidates have done it that way already, with a link. I have never asked this before; others did and that is how they decided to respond, which is fine with me. If he wants to post it there on the RfA page itself, that is fine too although it is nice to have a subpage of all the responses to the Challenge exercises so people can compare them and study them, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Whatever is fine with the community, is fine with me. Also, I think any candidate that hopes to pass will be able to determine how/where they want to answer the question, so it's probably not a major issue. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Kim Bruning and a few others have suggested trying to improve our training materials for new admins and new editors and admin candidates. And these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises are a tiny contribution to that effort. Now that I start to understand Wikipedia a little, I notice that very few have any experience with controversial issues. And admins are often pressed into service in these areas so it is good to expose them to it a bit and to see how their judgement is. Eventually I would favor having a much better set of training exercises and classes and lectures and so on that editors, admin candidates and new admins can take advantage of. I do not want to make it harder to become an admin; I want to see a higher fraction passing RfA, but I want to see those passing RfA having more experience in some of the more difficult areas. At least some superficial awareness, if nothing else.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointed

Filll, I haven't yet purchased headphone, though I'll let you know when I do. However, I just happened to re-read some of our dialogue here[1] and was a bit shocked by your comments. Could you re-read this now with some separation of time and give me your feedback. You suggested that pro-homeopathy editors were ignoring the negative studies on Arsenicum album, and yet, when Arion and I pointed out that we do not know about any negative studies on this medicine, you accused me of "wikilawyering." I still don't get how you could pull this rabbit out of the hat. I previously asked for an apology, but never got it. I still believe that I deserve one. DanaUllman^Talk 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you. I do not want to offend anyone. However, I would like us to aim towards an NPOV resource. And from all that I know and have read, to state that homeopathy is proven to work and there are no contrary studies that show no efficacy beyond placebo is inaccurate. You deny that such studies exist? I have read of several. Part of my disgust with the article and withdrawal from it has been that I did not want to spend endless hours fighting this pointless battle. I would rather do something where I can contribute in a positive way, like untwisting the nightmarish confused contradictory scales that are used in homeopathy to denote "potency".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I have never said or even implied that there is "no negative research on homeopathy." There are plenty of negative studies on homeopathy. Our conversation would have been totally different if our talk was taking place under the larger article, homeopathy. However, our previous conversation took place in the article on Arsenicum album, and up until now, all of the research testing it has been positive (as far as I know). The probable reason for this is that the research testing it has been narrowed to animal and human trials in subjects who were exposed to that specific mineral (as compared with other research in which treating diseased states tends to require more individualization of remedy selection). I now understand why you said what you said, but I am still confused how you jumped to your generalization when I had already said that I was only referring to the subject of the article itself, Arsenicum. That is when you accused me of "wikilawyering," and then, Shoemaker chimed in with other offensive (and inaccurate) remarks. And then, to make things even worse, your silence has helped to put additional nails in my coffin. I don't get it. It is because I sense that you don't mean to be offensive that misunderstanding and your silence is so darn confusing. Please review our previous conversation to see what really happened, and if appropriate, please acknowledge what your new understanding is. DanaUllman^Talk 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, if there are homeopathic treatments which have only strong positive results, then I am not sure how we should write the articles. If there are no mainstream medicine opinions to the contrary, then one line of thought is that we present the view that "the treatment has having only positive evidence in its favor". I do not know the literature on this. I would be quite surprised if this were true, but it is possible. For example, Zicam obviously has some clearly measurable biological effects and the manufacturer even had to pay legal settlements for Zicam's negative side effects on some people. So this is a complicated question and one for which the literature must be plumbed deeply.

On your potential sanctioning: I have witnessed your behavior on the talk pages of these articles for a long long time. Months. And to be honest, it was mainly disruptive. And almost all other contributors were driven away by the behavior of you and your friends. One can be pro-homeopathy and welcomed at Wikipedia, like User: Peter morrell. The difference is, willingness to work within the rules and principles and conventions of the community. I like you Dana and I have made various entreaties to try to keep you out of trouble, but when you are unfettered, you have not always done things that were to your advantage.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I appreciate your good nature, though your response above made me laugh. You pointed to Peter Morrill as a good editor who works within the wiki-policies, but it seems that you have not followed homeopathy articles much because Peter is so so so fed up with the disruption from the lividly anti-homeopathy editors, he has left the homeopathy articles. I'm glad that you considered him civil (he is, though he thinks that most editors of the homeopathy articles are not and that they game the system, using wiki-policies and using gang behavior (having an active group of experienced wiki-editors is effectively working to mute me).

There have been four large double-blind placebo controlled trials on the treatment of people with influenza with Oscillococcinum and even a Cochrane Report describing its effects as "promising," but the anti-homeopathy editors have effective kept this info out of the homeopathy article AND even out of the Oscillococcinum article (note: this medicine is not effective in the "prevention" of the flu, but it is effective in its treatment). And yet, I am "disruptive" for referring to it and wanting it as a part of the homeopathy article.

There IS a body of evidence on Arsenicum album, animal and human studies. And yet, most of these studies are ignored, but worse, when I posted on the Talk pages many of them, I got attacked, furiously, including by you (remember that "wikilawyering" comment). And yet, I got called "disruptive." The bottomline here is that IF you believe that homeopathy is totally bunk and totally quackery, then my references to research is "disruptive." But if you want wikipedia to be encyclopedic and NPOV, only POV-pushing anti-homeopathy editors will consider me disruptive.

As for Zicam, it is a homeopathic medicine, though it is called a "low potency" medicine because it is not potentized much. And this is one more bit of evidence of the embarrassing ignorance of so many anti-homeopathy editors because they lump together ALL homeopathic medicines (this is the epitome of sloppy thinking and analysis...though this is not surprising when these editors are POV-pushing). Yeah, it IS that bad...and it seems that you too have been fooled, though you seem curable. DanaUllman^Talk 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NTWW

On 24 May 2008, 17:00 (UTC), Not the Wikipedia Weekly will host a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Wikipedia around the world, with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

[edit] Help on Thomas G. Barnes

Help! Got an insistent editor that wants to weasel the pseudoscientific aspect of his creationist beliefs. Please assist. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NTWW

IT's recording now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my computer is sickly at the moment so I won't be joining you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sickly? Try homeopathy. Water with a crushed microchip poured onto your computer should help. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imagination award

I, Renata3, award you this Imagination Award for coming up with weirdest AFG challenge situations that are extremely fun to read as they are so WikiDrama-like :) Renata (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want them to be fun to read, and not just a chore. I also want to show how ridiculous some of these editing disputes can be.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AGF Challenge at RfA

Hi Filll, I just started a discussion thread at RfA related to your AGF Challenge questions hereBalloonman (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emails about a current RfA

Filll, I am in possession of an email apparently sent by you through the internal email system referring the recipient to the oppose section of a current RfA. I am sure you are aware of the guidelines against canvassing, and that a campaign of soliciting opposition to a current RfA from multiple users would be a serious breach of those guidelines. Could you confirm (a) whether you have indeed sent such message and (b) to how many users these have been sent. WjBscribe 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I would appreciate a copy of this email, if you did indeed send it and do not object. I would very much like to know what has been said behind-the-scenes about my candidacy. I assume the RfA closer will take into account these incident, if what Will says is true. Thank you, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind answering Fill? There's quite a few of us waiting to know. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise - Alison ^❤ 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you, would you consider answering WJB on this page? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You will get a full announcement of the details when everyone else does. Just relax. I have plenty to say. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fair. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to spoof an email. Smells like some dramaz developing around here, particularly given the growing attention given to Filll's AGF challenge....anybody would think some people are taking "challenge" a bit to far... Shot info (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so easy to do it through the Wikipedia email system, which tags the logged in user's email to the info. And I have to admit, the silence (and Filll's constant in-out at the ID Project membership list) is deafening. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it wasn't sent to WJB, but he is "in possession" of it, one can only wonder what has happened with it. Unless of course people out there have some sort of "magic" mailer that can pull out more source information that what the server actually does forward... Shot info (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to WJB (Filll sent it to me through MediaWiki); another ID editor told me (I'm pretty sure he wasn't lying) Filll sent out three of those canvassing e-mails. Furthermore, nearly all the ID project members are opposing DHMO... I'm fairly certain Filll wasn't the only one canvassing. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect and I will be making a full public announcement. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just how are you going to do that? Please bear in mind that some of us don't use IRC. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not care. Go away. I have had enough of your mean spirited harassment and ugliness and personal attacks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil; and assume good faith; we all know that you are an advocate for that rule with you assume good faith "challenge" - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the Diligent Digital Terrier. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:NPA. Do not escalate this. This is your only warning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I doing that requires a warning? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DT and RC here - they're not doing anything wrong by validly questioning a contributor over concerns raised by a bureaucrat. Orderinchaos 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered privately to Arbcomm over 24 hours ago. The rest of you can wait, thanks. I am not beholden to you, but to the authorities, right? What is your rush?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would in and of itself have been a valid answer to their queries. Orderinchaos 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

A request for arbitration to look into your conduct has been made here. Please make a statement. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI on CorticoSpinal

As a courtesy I mention here that I have filed a Wikipedia incident noticeboard report at WP:ANI#User:CorticoSpinal. The report's subject is CorticoSpinal, but your name is in the report. Eubulides (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I wash my hands of this. Handle your mess yourselves.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NTWW video episodes

Since you expressed in the concept of video episodes before, I'd like to point you to Wikipedia talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Live from New York... it's video episodes!. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but my impression is that those are a very bad idea and I would not suggest anyone take part in them. They are just far too dangerous and we should not be encouraging such things.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

For the forseeable future, I will not take part in any polls such as RfAs or RfBs. These are becoming too ugly and too fraught with bad feelings for anyone to consider participating in them. I have had it with the intimidation and the threats, and the coercion and worse that accompanies them. --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A public statement about the DMHO RfA

I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:

• I contacted only three people.
• Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
• In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
• I promise it will never happen again.

Filll, I accept your apology. Thank you for your honesty. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Response I'm glad to hear it won't happen again, and I'm perfectly fine with your apology. That being said, there are reasons why this looks bad:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Disruptive canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Perception	Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret.		Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA."		Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email.		Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share.

Thus, of the four criteria required to be considered a friendly notice as compared to canvassing, your email only meets one of those three and that's assuming we AGF and trust that there were only 3 people contacted. The other 3 criteria, were clear violations of WP:CANVASS. Again, I will AGF and I consider this an isolated incident, but this was a clear violation of Canvass.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC) subpage

I've replied here. By the way, I'm curious as to why you e-mailed me to notify me of DHMO's RFA? We've never met before, as far as I know. · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You will forgive me if I decline to continue this conversation until after the current imbroglio has passed. I assure you, there was nothing improper or nefarious involved. And as you know from the followup email(s) you received from me, I was completely unaware that I had committed any offense of any kind.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, I'm assuming that question was for Filll not for me?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, sorry to see all the above. You've done an immense amount of work here, and unfortunately some situations get rather fraught, where expressing ideas with enthusiasm rather than extreme tact can lead to misunderstandings. Evidently you've inadvertently gone over the line in notifying people, and have rightly promised that it won't happen again. In my opinion the responses are well measured and should be fully appreciated. The idea of withdrawing for a bit from discussions where things get threatening looks wise to me, if there's anything I can do to help you through this sticky patch do let me know, dave souza, talk 10:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel really bad that not even ArbCom members follow what I thought were the rules. Sorry to be harsh, but this is very disillusioning. Maybe Wikipedia really is breaking down as you suggest above. Sorry for expressing this to you now. I know this is a difficult time for you. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They only do it because we let them do it. If we object as a community, it will not happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skype?

Filll, I know your system has been having some technical difficulties of late, but if you could get on Skype, I'd really love a chat with you mate. Will it be possible? Anthøny 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We will see.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noah's Ark

As a previously involved editor on Noah's Ark you might be interested in a current call for a vote on an important aspect of that article. PiCo (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted above, I will not be participating in (1) controversial articles like Noah's Ark, since it is far too dangerous, and is likely to get someone upset to the point of threatening others or even wanting to kill others (2) any polls about anything, since again polls are far too dangerous and any such vote will probably get someone upset, causing them to threaten others or want to take revenge on someone for having voted the "wrong" way.

It is just not worth getting killed over. In fact, my advice would be just to delete the entire article since Noah's Ark gets too many people upset. And clearly, the community seems not to be interested in accuracy or following its own policies or preventing such aggressive activity. However, the community seems very interested in charging people with violations of WP:CIVIL for such terrible "offenses" as stating "that argument is silly" or "I disagree with your reasoning". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Death threats? Are you serious? PiCo (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. I wish was kidding.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also admins who have used "death threats" as a reason to exercise their right to vanish and have their contributions deleted (just before an arbitration in which their behavior might be called into question), only to show up immediately with a new name and still with admin duties. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that is possible. I do not know of any such cases however. That does not mean it has not happened.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of such a case. It was part of my traumatic first year on Wikipedia when I was still idealistic about the project. Now I guess I should learn to expect anything. It is the way of the world. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said over a year ago. "For better or worse ... people read this shit ... and believe it to be truth". I see my students do it every day. Don't let the f@ckwits win! My project for next year is to have every student in AP Biology create an account and be responsible for editing for improvement a biology article (steering clear of main-stream) You know ... the cool stuff like intoxication in bees. I'm hoping you will be around to serve as a mentor. Do try to stay out of trouble until then! --JimmyButler (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)