User talk:SteveBaker/archive10

Please contact me before blanketly reestablishing erroneous information

I have posted corrected and verified information regarding The Mood Ring several times. While I appreciate others making edits where informed and necessary, you have made cuts for no apparent reason. I have reestablished the page as it was some months ago and if you find that there are areas that you challenge, please contact me so we I can provide you with validation of the information I have posted. There is much interest in the history of the mood ring, which you had previously deleted. Also, for additional reading, there are books which further validate the background and implementation of the ring, which I have cited, and you have removed. Perhaps you thought I was merely a vandal, removing an entire site and replacing it with something new, but the actual case is that the site had been so compromised over the past few months, it needed to be resurrected completely. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to having a dialogue with you.

DreamBeliever2238 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) DreamBeliever2238 DreamBeliever2238 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your actions in simply reverting the results of dozens of editors over many weeks is unacceptable behavior. Far from being "compromised over the past few months" - it's been fixed and turned into a serious, well researched science-based description of what a Mood Ring actually is - minus all the superstition and unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo. As you can see, another editor has already undone much of your change. You simply don't have the backing to simply wipe out dozens and dozens of edits by a large number of people - who seem to have converged on a much more appropriate version of the article that avoids Fringe theories. If you continue to make such sweeping reversions, you can be assured that I (and others) will continue to restore it. I believe the "In popular culture" section should be removed (per MOS trivia guidelines) because the information it contains is trivia - and (worst of all) poorly written, completely unsourced trivia. If you have sources for all of the statements made in that section and are prepared to rewrite it in a style other than a mindless list of bulleted trivia, then please do so ASAP - or I'll be only too happy to remove it once more. SteveBaker (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

no a valid reason for removal

actually it is (WP:NOT) - Article pages are for improving articles not general conversation about issues that will not improve the article - see the Muhammed talkpages for an example of where this has had to be into practice alot. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee Here!

Hi its your adoptee here. Sorry I have not been in touch recently..it's been pretty mad my end. Hope everything is OK with you?

Just to confirm I would like to keep you as my adopter just in case I encounter any problems and I need help!

Cheers

Jack Random Jack (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I have not lapsed! Keep me. Tnayin (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude... no.

This is so far beyond inappropriate, it's shameful.

• Don't bother applying
• And writing directly to Jimbo wasn't cool
• You currently have less than 450 edits to your credit which puts your likelyhood of success at...oh...around 0%
• They'll take a look at your "User contributions" and discover that you have never, not even once, done any of those things and reject your request without further consideration
• try again in a year or two

Srs? Calm down. I find it highly ironic that you just tanked any chance of a successful RFA for yourself in biting a newb in regards to his chances of having a successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Lara❤Love 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a bite - that was the truth - and this isn't a newbie - he's been editing since late 2006. Honesty beats false hope one to nothing. There are enough ridiculous RfA's out there as it is - we don't need to create more! As for me - personally, I don't want adminship - it's not a badge of achievement and it's not something that experienced Wikipedians should automatically be assumed to aspire to - it's a set of tools for doing a specific set of jobs. Before I realised the truth of that, I applied for RfA (and failed for the curious reason that I had spent too much time actually writing articles!?!) - nowadays I turn down people who offer to nominate me. SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the truth presented in a damn bitey fashion. If you don't believe Lara, believe me. If you don't believe me let me know and someone else will come tell you the same thing. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Until worded it perfect. You are absolutely right in your message, but absolutely wrong in your presentation. It was rude, disrespectful and unnecessary. He may have registered some time ago, but in that he only has 450 edits, he's still a newb. Jimbo's page is patrolled by a lot of people, and you have no right to tell anyone that they can't post to it. You also have no right to speak for everyone else. I think the vast majority of RFA voters would have been much more tactful and kind in their response to his nomination. Moral support goes a long way for people acting in good faith. Lara❤Love 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better.

Thanks so much for your eloquent defense[1] of our arguably lame April Fools' Joke. That's exactly what I wanted to tell the joke's detractors, but I was a bit tongue-tied and mopey after the initial abuse our little conceit received. Your words were warmly appreciated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Minis

I feel a little hostility in our discussion, and I wonder why. I don't want to take anything away from you, nor do I wish to harm you in any other way. Please try to keep the issue in mind before addressing me in your postings. Thanks. --87.189.70.10 (talk)

I just asked for a third opinion. --87.189.70.10 (talk)

Your attitude towards this one small and relatively unimportant guideline is (to say the least) unhelpful. The goal here is to make a better encyclopedia. It's all too easy to lose sight of that in a morass of rules, policies and guidelines. That's why we have the "Ignore All Rules" principle right up there at the top of the list. When a guideline interferes with a decent description of the world - ignore the darned thing. The purpose of guidelines is to guide you in that goal of making a better encyclopedia. They are not meant to override good editing. In this case, the guideline makes the encyclopedia significantly worse.

Please explain to me why you think renaming the article makes it in any way better - because in my eyes (and in those of pretty much every authority on the car itself) - your change makes it significantly worse. As the ONLY authoritative work on the MINI to not spell it's name the proper and correct way - we look STUPID. ...and for no particularly good reason other than mindless conformity to a fairly minor guideline. Then to add insult to injury you start trying to remove the 'Good Article' tag from the article - which (quite frankly) starts to look vindictive. It would be more helpful if you would actually improve the article rather than going out of your way to destroy it. SteveBaker (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to communicate and again get personal attacks (riddled with lies no less) and complete disregard for anything I say. You wasted enough of my time, the gloves come off now. --87.189.62.219 (talk)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you!

And misuse of templates is vandalism. Please stop doing that. SteveBaker (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPA: Surely you can see that {your actions are} just laughably stupid I also consider your repeated allegations that I'm a sock puppet to be highly offensive.

AGF: Your first set of changes were perhaps excusable ("be bold" is another pillar) - although moving an article in the teeth of the opposition from long-term content creators without extensive prior discussion goes well beyond "being bold"! But after I pointed it out in my first edit comment when I reverted your somewhat understandable mistake - you should certainly not have re-reverted - that's just plain rude. Note that I changed the article once (except for a whitespace-only change ten days before).

Ownership: My research is not "admittedly short". I happen to be an expert on this subject. I've owned three MINIs (including the first to be registered in the state of Texas and the first MINI Convertible off the production line to be built to US specifications). I've also owned and restored three Minis over the years. I still have one of each. In order to write this article, the Mini and Mini Moke articles, I went out and bought every single book ever written on the MINI and the Mini Moke - and over 100 written about the Mini...trust me - I know how just about every author writes about these cars. Also passim.

Consensus: You do not have consensus either. Summarizing to selectively pick and choose the arguments you want to defeat is an old Wikipedia tactic and it won't work. Hence I will continue to revert if you rename the article again.

So, since baseless accusations (carrying a threat of blocking even) are a personal attack:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I suggest that you calm down and focus on the topic, not on me. --87.189.62.219 (talk)

Tyre vs Tire

I very much like the text you wrote at the top of the talk page. I've taken similar action on the bicycle and motorcycle pages, one in American English and the other in British English. While researching the spelling of tyre/tire, I came across some neat details in the American and British English spelling differences article. Specifically: "Tire is the older spelling, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries (for a metal tire); tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century but tyre was revived in the UK in the 19th century for pneumatic tyres, possibly because it was used in some patent documents, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905." It cites The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters, 2004, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-62181-X. I thought this might be helpful in the tyre/tire article, but I don't want to open a can of worms that you've worked hard to close. Suggestions? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the titles of articles (at least) we should strive to be of the most use possible to our readers. They are going to be looking for articles based on modern spellings and meanings - so (for the purposes of title selection) I really don't care what the ancient history of the spelling/meaning is. That kind of information belongs in the bulk of the article - but the title should strive to use modern meanings since that is what our readership will use in looking things up. So that leaves us with the problem of British vs US (vs Australia vs NewZealand...) spelling. This is an insoluable problem. Unless we want to split English dialects off into separate languages (like we do with French and German Wikipedias) - we have to recognise that we simply cannot do a great job of this. The present rules are not great - but at least they are clearly defined - and that's all that's needed to stop flame wars. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest changing the name of the article, the spelling in the article, nor even fight flame wars. I just found the information interesting and thought it might be interesting to other readers of the article. On some talk page somewhere, I read someone's comments about the etymology of tire and tyre, but I don't see it mentioned in the article now. I don't, however, want to cause a bunch of trouble by blindly adding the information to the exiting article, so I'm checking with you first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh - then I'm sorry! I misunderstood. Well, your information has references - so there is no reason not to include it in the article. Go ahead! SteveBaker (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus essay

Hi Steve, hope you are keeping well. There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Governance reform which reminded me of your essay on consensus. You might find it interesting. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy

If you are so inclined, we'd like to hear your opinions on fuel economy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#no_obvious_reason_why_fuel_economy_is_not_included_in_the_infobox . 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto image policy development

Hi, SteveBaker. I'm trying to move the ball forward on this topic and hold namecalling and invective to a minimum here on WPA. If you have a moment and can add your thoughts, the odds of a productive outcome would likely improve. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have attracted the attention of a moderator concerning this issue. Moderator name=User talk:CWii

Image copyright problem with Image:AlexanderLitvinenkoHospital.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexanderLitvinenkoHospital.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About OpenGL Utility Toolkit

I have noticed that you have removed the statement Alternatively, the functions setjmp() and longjmp() in setjmp.h can be used for fixing the problem, and have stated that using the functions in such way will cause memory leaks and all manner of other problems. I will assume that your reason is correct, but I am stupid, I do not know why the usage of the functions will cause a lot of problems. Could you please explain the "principle" behind (preferably in detail but still comprehensible), and give the reliable sources of the reason??? QQ (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GLUT (and freeglut - of which I'm the owner and part-author) both allocate memory and resources like window ID's, fonts, and devices (the joystick for example) that would never be free'd up. So, if (for example) you had a program where you used the joystick to interact with some 3D object in a window - then on pressing the 'FIRE' button, the program went off and computed something complicated for an hour without doing any user interaction, then with setjmp/longjmp, the GLUT window would remain open - and the joystick 'ownership' would be retained (thereby preventing any other program from using the joystick) until the application finished doing it's L-O-N-G non-interactive calculation. There is no way in GLUT to release those resources without exiting the program. In freeglut, one of the very few changes we made to the GLUT API was to add ways to do that cleanly.

In any case, using setjmp and longjmp (which are really intended as error recovery mechanisms) for such a purpose is just a hideously ugly practice - and certainly not something that Wikipedia should be advocating.

But beyond that, the problem with GLUT's mainloop is not that you can't exit it when you want the program to end (for which purpose, I suppose a setjmp/longjmp pair might work some circumstances in those OS's where the OS recovers allocated memory and windowing resources automatically) - but that you can't continue to handle windowing operations and such without GLUT "owning" the main loop. I have encountered situations where (for example) a physics engine also wanted to own the main loop and it was impossible to have both GLUT and the physics engine operating the main loop. With freeglut, you can do that entirely cleanly.

So - it would be wrong to suggest that this limitation of GLUT could be so easily circumvented. Trust me, if it could, I'd never have gone to the immense difficulty and effort of cloning the entire API just to add that one little feature!!

Mark Kilgard (whom I've known and talked with often and for many years) claims that GLUT was designed purely as a way of getting OpenGL programmers started with simple applications - and as a means to keep the examples in the OpenGL manual (the 'redbook') free of OS-dependent code. He didn't feel that it was necessary to support any kind of sophisticated stuff - so he didn't. However, GLUT became more popular than it should ever have been - and some very large applications have been written using it that run into these limitations in a big way. That's why freeglut adds in that additional functionality - whilst in all other ways attempting to remain an exact clone of GLUT.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

What is your opinion of this www.fuelvaportcar.com. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough information about their engine technology on their site to judge what exactly they are doing engine-wise. But tiny experimental vehicles can reach 100mpg fairly easily with more or less conventional engines - so whatever they are doing doesn't have to be a really major breakthrough. After all, there are plenty of motorbikes out there that'll produce performance figures at least as good as that car...it's a super-lightweight three wheeler - it almost certainly doesn't have to have all of the safety stuff that a street legal car is encumbered with, no airconditioner, it looks like it only has one or maybe two seats - it could easily be as light as a big motorbike - and in that case, 100mpg is not hard to achieve.

The trick is to do all that - and remain both street-legal and comfortable/useful enough for Joe Public.

That the smallest, lightest, usable street car is still going to be around 2200 to 2600lbs. 2600lbs is the weight of a modern 2001/2008 MINI Cooper (four seat, air conditioned, fast & safe) - which with all of the fanciest technology manages 42mpg (with good accelleration, handling and top speed - as well as seven airbags, side-reinforcement beams, etc). Now look at the predecessor of that car. My 1963 Mini Cooper manages 55mpg with the clunkiest most horrible engine technology imaginable...it does that not because of any fancy high tech stuff - it's because it only weighs 1300lbs. Weight is everything - but modern safety and pollution regulations - plus consumer expectations force you to DOUBLE the weight of the vehicle. It's tough for engine technology to make up that difference.

So I don't know what those guys are doing - maybe it's something revolutionary - but I don't think it necessarily has to be. It could just be super-light design with really good aerodynamics and such.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your COI posting about User:Nseidm1

Hello Steve. Can you check the responses to your posting at WP:COIN to see if you have any further comments or concerns? Since I have crossed paths with this editor in the past, I am not too worried myself. He is an enthusiast for his technology ideas, but he does respect article consensus. If you see a specific problem that needs addressing, perhaps you can add it to the report. If not, I can mark the report as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

The person that is adding the automotive section agrees with you completely that it 100% bunk to think anything related to oxyhydrogen will run a car and the edit says as much. I think we can agree the whole page is dancing around a pile of steaming bull. There would not be a oxyhydrogen page or a Brown's gas discussion without the automotive context, everyone with half a mind would be happy to call it a hydrogen and oxygen mixture. Any further discussion could be on a page about wielding. The patents noted are not significant in any context but fraud. Automotive use is certainly doomed to failure and that might make it something different than an "application". Maybe a new section called misapplication is reasonable. Either way it is worth discussing why we have a page called oxyhydrogen.--OMCV (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. Unless you think that the term oxyhydrogen( and the various other trademarked flavors of the term) is NOT associated with water cars and various dubious hydrogen fuel schemes, then the edit should stand. Ideally someone who found the term HHO or Browns' Gas would find this article and then find their way quickly to a nice discusison of efficiency of electrolysis and various watercar schemes. HHO automotive stuff is all over youtube now and should be addresed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We are required to present the mainstream view:

1. That Oxyhydrogen is not magical - it's H2 and O2.
2. That there is no conceivable way to use a mixture of H2 and O2 in a car unless you are planning on welding bits of jewellery onto it...and even then, probably not.

So why should we be saying that an actual real application of oxyhydrogen is in cars? It's not! There is not one single car on the road that uses oxyhydrogen for any purpose than as a kind of automotive placebo effect. I'd be happy to add a section that said something like "Claimed automotive applications" or "Things that oxhydrogen is claimed to be useful for" - but the word "Application" connotes an actual useful purpose.

Guyonthesubway says: Unless you think that the term oxyhydrogen( and the various other trademarked flavors of the term) is NOT associated with water cars and various dubious hydrogen fuel schemes, then the edit should stand.. Well, I do believe that the term Oxyhydrogen is primarily used in situations NOT associated with fraudulant car schemes. Here, for example shows that the term is indeed used in specialised welding situations - and the term certainly dates back to (at least) 1911 because there is a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article here that uses the term. So we need an article that is primarily about the real uses and meaning of the term...and this short-lived (hopefully) phenomenon of fuel 'enhancement' needs nothing more than a passing mention - it's barely notable - and it has it's own article, which we should probably link to in a single sentence somewhere. SteveBaker (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that many things in science have changed in science since 1911. I was wondering were the historic lighting idea came from. I highly doubt that hydrogen was used for this purpose. I bet the encyclopedia is wrong. I'm also glad you could find a page that uses oxyhydrogen correctly but now I ask you to do a google search on oxyhydrogen and evaluate the sites/information you get back, most of them are frauds. As you note applications is not the place for this information but as I suggested misapplication or maybe popular presentations. I don't think ignoring misinformation is the best way to deal with it. Regardless I support your efforts to present the truth. Just looking for consensus.--OMCV (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A google hit count doesn't really prove much in this kind of situation - the fraudsters are doing their very best to wallpaper the Internet with this junk - it's not surprising that you get a lot of hits. The 1911 Britannica may or may not be wrong - but what it proves beyond any doubt is that this word 'oxyhydrogen' has been around a long time - and it's meaning was well established long before the jam jar full of water with two battery wires stuck through the lid became a $200 car accessory. But yes - let's talk (briefly) about the car situation in a separate section that makes it clear that Wikipedia is not saying that these things actually work. I'm sure we can agree on the right form of words. SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about something like :

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with schemes to increase automotive engine efficiency. See water-fuelled car Many of these claims violate the Law of conservation of energy. See Conservation of energy and [Electrolysis of water#Efficiency|Electrolysis of water:Efficiency]].

Sends people where they should go, and makes no claims. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "claims" rather than "schemes" - there should be a link to Hydrogen fuel enhancement (which is where all of this stuff properly belongs IMHO). But otherwise OK. SteveBaker (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-replicating machine

On what basis do you justify the claim that partial construction is *not particularly new* ? Do recall, that I defined the concept. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to say (and it was only an edit summary so forgive my poor explanation) was that the paragraph in question didn't seem to fit into a list of recent activity - all of the other entries have dates and names and such. This paragraph seems to be simply defining a term - so I moved it out into a separate section. Now that I look at the edit history, I see that the section on partical construction was once more fully fleshed out - but it seems to have been stripped down by User:Ripe on 27th May...I wonder why? If you could point me to some resources that relate to your work on partial construction, I'd be happy to read about it and craft a new section on your recent work to add into the recent progress part of the article. I think the distinction between the previous section on historical work and the section on recent work is kinda silly anyway - there are only a couple of years between the most recent 'historical' entry and the oldest 'recent' entry. A simple timeline of progress in the field might be more useful to our readers than artificially saying "this is new but that is old".

PLEASE NOTE: If you actually work and contribute to the field and part or parts of the article are directly about you and/or your work then you really must recuse yourself from editing the article and state your conflict of interest openly on the talk page - please read WP:COI. If you directly contribute to the article based on your own work, that would be a clear breach of WP:NOR - and that can lead to problems such as those that AvantVenger (aka Charles Collins) has gotten into. That doesn't prevent you from making suggestions and offering leads on the Talk: page - so long as you make it clear who you are and what your affiliations are. It's important for Wikipedia to maintain a truly independent voice.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, partial construction is the term for the behavior of a machine which constructs itself. The process is particularly compelling vis-à-vis self-replication; the clear implication is that a self-replicator needs a full complement of the mechanisms of self-replication, while such ability is not necessary to self-construction. You can find information respecting partial construction in the proceedings volume to Automata 2008, the paper Signal Crossing Solutions in von Neumann 29-State Cellular Automata, which is searchable on Amazon.

As to COI, there is none for the clear reporting of content, and my inclusion of material in the subject article did not mention my name. The question seems to center on purpose of content, which is simply to accurately describe partial construction suitable to the typical reader. The content which I included, and Ripe excluded, is easily discernible from the content of the Automata 2008 paper. However, there will be much more to consider when the paper Computational Ontogeny appears later this month in Biological Theory.

The mistakes of User Ripe are not so egregious but, they are vandalism. He draws conclusions inconsistent with the process of partial construction, and thus makes edits which gut proper content from the discussion. With time, the text will approach correctness, and so my task is merely the disclosure of material from which others may draw. Indeed, the original text I entered was intended as a starting point for others, and you will please take pains to note that I have not engaged in a war with Ripe over the alleged vandalism.

The notion of a *truly independent voice* is fiction. No voice is independent, most especially of bias; all interests are vested. Much more important is the open disclosure of role, and that I actively engage research into this topic in no way implies impropriety for inclusion of text. Indeed, I think that a survey by you of others who have contributed to this page and other pages will verify the propriety of my edits.

I do now well understand your motivation for altering article content, and I agree with you that a time-line of the historical record would be a better means to distinguish events. William R. Buckley (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I've cautioned user:Go-here.nl about deleting comments from talk pages, but I agree with him that you remarks on Talk:Free energy suppression quoting his talk page were uncivil and I request that you remove them yourself. See WP:NPA. --agr (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh for chrissakes - I was lightheartedly quoting his own User: page - which was clearly meant in a humorous way in the first place. WP:CIVIL says: incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress.. Quoting someone's own description of themselves does not come close to rising to this standard. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After the quote, you went on to add "so there is no telling when he/she/it will be back in our neighbourhood to explain the posting." That is clearly mocking. The editor in question didn't take it as lighthearted and neither do I. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." (WP:NPA) --agr (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research in "fringe articles"

I would appreciate it if you would back up your claim here, as it is a rather major one that needs to be updated in the policy page if true! Thanks. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)