User talk:Art LaPella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Art LaPella and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Big Bang

Your comment on deuterium makes some sense, but mostly suggests that the article on Big Bang needs more detail in some places. The use of the word "universe" as having more helium includes gas clouds that have little but hydrogen and helium in them, and so are assumed not to have been processed in stars, as well as planets such as Jupiter that are mostly hydrogen and helium, but as is well known with modest complements of material processed in stars. Yet I do not think you could be right if you assume all the material in Jupiter or Saturn had been processed inside a star. Low mass stars produce mostly more helium, and as you go up in mass you can produce the heavier elements, but you destroy the helium. I guess what I am saying is that the primordial (pre galaxy formation) abundance of helium appears to be about 25%, as determined from unprocessed gas clouds, the oscillations of RR-Lyrae stars, and other data such as the compositions of very low mass stars that never ignited (brown dwarfs) and the gaseous planets (with corrections for the inclusion of some matter pre-processed in stars, but not a majority of the matter, and with corrections for differential escape of gases during planetary formation.) The first big contribution was actually by Bob Christy (of Caltech) - reference: Title: A Study of Pulsation in RR Lyrae Models Author: Christy, Robert F. Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 144, p.108 Publication Date: 04/1966

who found a 30% helium abundance for these stars which are thought (from their very low metal abundance and location in the halo of the galaxy) to be mostly unprocessed primordial matter in their outer parts, which control the oscillation. (The inner parts provide the energy and would have more helium, but they are just the energy source, and the production rate does not vary appreciably) (think of a tractor engine with a flap over the exhaust. The flap oscillates up and down not because the power varies, but due to gas dynamics and the dynamics of the flap). Later work corrected Christy's values closer to 25%.

Nice to see a fellow mainly in investments has such broad interests and provocative questions. Hope I helped. Pdn 04:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I suggest that these words be added to the end of the sentence: "..., in places believed to be uncontaminated by stellar nucleosynthesis and supernova blasts." Art LaPella 17:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nice addition to set up a link! Thanks. One has, of course, to allow that supernova blasts are in the broad sense steller nucleosynthesis sites - all the heavy elements come from there. Pdn 00:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm playing this game again. See Talk:Age of the universe#graviational. Art LaPella 02:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

And again. Talk:Lambda-CDM model#100,000. The find command on any browser I've tried is ctrl-F.Art LaPella 20:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC) This has now been fixed. Art LaPella 00:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Bang (movie)

Thanks for tidying up The Big Bang, nice work. Alf 00:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Innings

I noticed that you'd changed "innings" to "inning" in the Fred Root article. I've changed it back, since "innings" is used in cricket for the singular as well as the plural; the sport doesn't use "inning" at all. Loganberry (Talk) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm American and I'll take your word for it. Art LaPella 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Stock Trading Program

Art - on your user page you mention a stock trading program that you wrote which appears to be successful! Any chance of an off wikipedia discussion about it? My email is petermarksmith at yahoo.com

--PeterMarkSmith 01:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ASK

Thanks for your concern and your contribution. It has only been a couple of days but (maybe it's my imagination) it seems that the editing traffic has gone down thanks to your notice. The problem during these past few weeks and since this link became part of the Mainpage header is that it's new visibility has given rise to a whole host of ideas to expand its content which is exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. I'm pretty sure you understand the concept of keeping this page short, simple and readable for our newest visitors and users. --hydnjo talk 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella 00:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you're welcome! --hydnjo talk 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Thanks for pointing me to the Dispute resolution page. I had already been through some of them, but not exhaustively. I've certainly had dialog with Joshuaschroeder, inititated a Request for Comments in the Plasma cosmology talk page, had third parties look at the discussions, suggested a survey (that he declined) on the Electric Universe talk page. All that, together with the points I mention in my Request for arbitration led me to what I felt was a last resort. I am sure that I did the right thing after seeing another example of joshua's input on the Electric Universe (Book) page. --Iantresman 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Art, I saw your comments in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. You wrote I don’t know the science well enough to make an independent judgment of the issues here. For me, one of the saddest things about this and other disputes is that I and other knowledgeable volunteers are being obstructed (due to lack of time) from adding new WP content explaining important scientific issues in cosmology and gravitation theory, which in my view tend to be much more subtle and interesting than the often semi-imaginary issues raised in newsgroup discussions or elsewhere on the web. I wish that intelligent laypersons understood this much better, and I believe that the only way to rectify the situation is to make available readable, accurate, timely, well-informed and fair summaries in a venue such as WP. Indeed, WP should be an ideal venue for doing this due to the convenience of wikisoftware! Unfortunately, I feel that the political structure of classic Wikipedia obstructs serious editors because resolving disputes like this one take way, way too much of our time. Sigh... CH 05:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel "obstructed (due to lack of time) from adding new WP content", nor do "resolving disputes like this one take way, way too much of [my] time" except in the sense that Wikipedia in general may take too much of my time. If I were Jimbo I would make Wikipedia less democratic. But since I'm not, I give however much time to trying to resolve edit wars as I feel productive, and if you look at my contributions you'll see I do a lot of other noncontroversial stuff. My introverted personality is much better suited for cleaning up details than for leadership, although I might take credit for the December lull in this edit war. When somebody says something obviously wrong I call them on it, though not the last few days due to IRS season. I'm not real sold on your proposal to start over and do things your way - you assume that everyone would suddenly stop arguing, but it seems more likely to just give them more issues to argue. The underlying philosophical issue is this: Is either side so wonderful that it justifies opposing the other side even when they're right? And if so, how does that make them better than creationists, who are despised by both sides, although most any religion promotes a moral code that science depends on? If both sides were encouraged to try to be right, they might learn to prefer trying to be right to being loyal, and then they would be real scientists regardless of what conclusions they came to. Art LaPella 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athari and Asharite

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, it seems you're right. The article has been fixed now. Yuber(talk) 04:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baryogenesis and the lepton era

In general, baryogenesis refers to the time when electrons and positrons decoupled from the field. This nominally occurs in the lepton era. It's not to say that baryons weren't around before then. There are disagreements as to what "baryogenesis" really means, but the article (rightly, in my opinion) emphasizes B-L number asymmetry occuring as the general definition. --Joshuaschroeder 19:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite/reword this any way you want. I just thought that baryogenesis deserved mention in the article. Joshuaschroeder 01:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni Islam

Thanks for keeping a watch on the article and reverting the section on "Sunni view of God". I don't have regular access to the net and can't really watch it continuously. The person who's adding the section doesn't seem to be interested in discussing it either. --Nkv 11:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Muslim, and my interest is only in enforcing Wikipedia policy, not in taking sides on theology. I would gladly bow out if he would discuss his opinion on the talk page. Art LaPella 18:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I would be thankful if he/she tried to discuss it too. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Thanks anyway. --Nkv 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, that Talk:Sunni Islam is getting ridiculous. I'd like to commend you on your even-handed and level-headed responses to those hotheads. My comment was meant more as a metaphorical shot in the air to calm down Muslim sunni and McKhan. I've no interest in sticking my nose between those two again. At least they've moved their dispute off the main page. -- Scientizzle 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Other than the Hariri allegation, McKhan's main objection seems to be that the Habashies aren't violent enough. Maybe we should just let Habashies put their links wherever they want. Art LaPella 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please visit the page Republika Srpska

Dear Art LaPella, please visit the page Republika Srpska. I left you a comment in regards of vandalism and PANONIAN. Thanks for your concern! I thought nobody really cares. Thanks again. --209.86.97.172 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for picking up the error on triptorelin!

You obviously know how it occurred...InvictaHOG 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (redirect)

Done! thanks, Dullfig

[edit] Dyme, Greece

The article you created about dyme is not much of an article and the original reason you said noted for creating it was to distinguish it from dime piece on the dyme page, which will be deleted in the next couple of hours (due to a unanamaous vote for deletion). If you think that the article you created could become a worthwhile article then I'd encourage you to expand it, otherwise it should be posted for deletion. Vicarious 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you can delete it. Note 3 or 4 historical articles link to it. Art LaPella 02:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t|c 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Thanks. Jkelly 05:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi

Hey dude thanks for always catching my mistakes. I've always been horrible at grammer/spelling and the like. Glad to know there are people like you on wikipedia making sure everything is correct =) SirGrant 08:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song Capitalisation

It was not my intention to point one to the block caps on the record label, but to the style as written on the page itself, it's how the title is written in English. Cheers, Lion King 13:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quentin Smith

Hi Art,

Whoops. Sorry about that. I went ahead and left a note about it on his talk page. By the way, thanks for cleaning up all those entries on the page. They look great!

Sincerely,

Primetime 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic slurs (old section)

List of ethnic slurs may be bereft without Primetime. Aside from his other exploits, he kept the article in some kind of order. Without him I'm afraid of a deluge. I've previously proposed a strict sourcing policy, similar to those adopted by list of sexual slurs, list of groups referred to as cults, etc. I don't want to unilaterally impose a strict solution if it seems to take advantage of user:Primetime's block, but I don't want to let this article run away from us. What do you suggest? -Will Beback 11:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. The first thing I would have done is to toughen up this language that occurs 26 times, once for each letter: "Wikipedia policy requires that material must be verifiable and supported by citations. Please provide citations for all new additions, and help us find citations for existing entries". Language like "or it will be reverted" would give contributors fair warning that they are going to a lot of work for nothing if they don't provide citations. It should appear 26 times, and also at the top, because most contributors' edit summary starts with the letter name of the paragraph they edited, showing that they wouldn't read something at the top. It seems a shame that we can't use "plate smasher", for instance, because Google says Greeks really are occasionally called plate smashers, but I can't think of a good way to turn that into a policy. It's technically possible to link to a Google search, but it wouldn't look like anything else I've seen on Wikipedia.
I would also put something like this on the talk page:"We are suspending new contributions without citations, at least until Primetime returns so he can provide the citations." Perhaps you would prefer not to invite Primetime to go back to the way it was, but you did express unease at taking advantage of the block. The language on his talk page makes his return seem uncertain. Art LaPella 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it appears increasingly that the indefinite block will remain indefinite. Thanks for the idea adding additional reminders. I'll keep removing unsourced new entries as they appear, but I won't remove any old ones for now. Later on we can talk about possibly moving the unsourced entries to a holding bin. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to List of ethnic slurs

Your recent edit to List of ethnic slurs was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit was obviously not vandalism. I reported the Tawkerbot2 malfunction on its talk page. Art LaPella 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for that edit in the Age of the Universe article. I was up late doing that one and I missed it twice! :) Astrobayes 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Os Lusíadas

You changed Melinde to Malindi, but I changed it back, since Melinde is how the land was known at the time and, more important, it is how Camões referes to it. The link still goes to Malindi, so I think there is no harm. If someone wants to know what land it is, they can just click and they will see that it is Malindi. For example, Calicut goes to the Kozhikode article. I think there is no harm done in having the names by which the poet referres to the lands. Thank you. P.S.: Forgive me for my spelling mistakes, I am Portuguese and my english isn't the best.

Actually, we're both right. I redirected the Melinde in Os Lusíadas#Canto V. You changed a different Malindi in Os Lusíadas#The narrators and their speeches without undoing my undisputed change, resulting in a Melinde that works just like mine. :)
As for your English (which is much better than my Portuguese), I plan to improve a few words in the Os Lusiadas article, but if Wikipedia didn't have any Portuguese people then we wouldn't know about Os Lusiadas at all.
Your use of << and >> signs looks unusual. I would have written strong Castro (Castro forte), for instance, as italics are often used (in English anyway) to indicate a foreign language. Art LaPella 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. As for you improving Os Lusíadas, I coulden't be happier. Regarding the italics, I did used them, but I was working on Word, since sometimes when I write directly in Wikipedia, I have to confirm some words and I lose all the job I did. When I passed it from Word to wikipedia, some of the italics were gone. About my «and» sign (I'm assuming it is the one above "...and, most...",and not from the article (if it is, please do correct it)) I used it that way because of how I use "e" in portuguese, and I don't know the rules of the english language, I'm only 14). Cheers.
Actually I didn't mean "and", I meant the "<<" and the ">>" you used, as in << strong Castro >>. Now I see you used them where others would use quote marks - ". Art LaPella 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've looked through the article in more detail, I decided not to try to improve some English language related problems because it has a bigger problem I don't know what to do with. The article is enthusiastically inspirational. The phrase "this exciting tone of the oratory" could be used to describe the whole article. I understand that the Portuguese people are presumably as proud of this epic as we Americans are proud of the United States Declaration of Independence, but notice that article doesn't say anything like: "The heroic, victorious patriots liberated their fatherland from the yoke of tyranny." It isn't easy to tell if it was written by an American or an Englishman. Similarly, it isn't easy to tell if Battle of Waterloo was written by an Englishman or a Frenchman. That's what all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be like - see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. We might want to find someone else with more experience rewriting something like this. Art LaPella 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

About the «» in my country that is the same as "". Change it if you want to. About the tone, etc., they aren't mine, I just translated thie article, nothing more, I didn't edited it. You can make it more neutral. I asked a portuguese user that is in wikipedia longer than me and is interested in articles related to the country, but i still have to see his answer. you could ask someone that may have a more neutral point of view. Cheers.

I don't usually do Point Of View edits, but you'll see I gave it a try anyway. A big thing I did to tone down the point of view was to change some comments into quotes, so Camoes' writing isn't confused with undisputed fact. So please make sure that I didn't attribute any words or ideas to Camoes that he didn't actually say.
I looked at the Portuguese Wikipedia version, so I can see what you did (I can guess about half the words because they resemble other Romance languages and because I just read your English version). I then saw the word translated as "canyons", and used an Internet translator to correct it to "cannons". Similarly, I think "fecund" (which means often having children) should be "eloquent" although most Internet translators couldn't translate that word at all. Most of my English language edits were simply reading your version and substituting something that sounds more normal. Art LaPella 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia software makes it look as if I rewrote several paragraphs completely. Actually, I never changed more than a few words at a time, which is my usual editing practice. Art LaPella 23:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the quote marks in the paragraph that says "Since Viriathus..." since the paragraph is only explaining what Camões was saying in his verses, and wrote "In these strophes Camões tells us that since Viriathus...". About the "Theis history proves it" part, I put "Jupiter says that their history proves it...". I used "Makes you [this] favour the Supreme/" since mercê is closer to favour than recognize. Thank you for your support.

[edit] RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration you may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. S. Neill

The "permissiveness" link which you've introduced to this page just links to criticisms of Benjamin Spock. I'm minded to revert it as irrelevant to Neill, unless there is a wider rationale for this linkage? AllyD 20:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous permissiveness link goes to a disambiguation page. Yesterday, permissiveness was a redirect to Benjamin Spock. So while reviewing what someone did to my redirect, I changed links to permissiveness to a paragraph of Benjamin Spock that discusses the word permissiveness. I wouldn't revert to a link to the disambiguation page which doesn't explain the word much. There's no Wiktionary entry for permissiveness, so an alternative would be to remove the link altogether. Art LaPella 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing barnstar...

I wanted to award you the diligence barnstar, only to find out that someone beat me to it. I just wanted to thank you for your tireless proofreading of articles and especially Lebanon, which is in bad need of someone to actually make it a quality article instead of working on POV issues (my job sadly :)). So I'll just settle for a smile:

LestatdeLioncourt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Keep it up! LestatdeLioncourt 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 19 October 2006, a fact from the article Christ's Resurrection Church, Kaunas, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate that article. I only rephrased the nomination. Art LaPella 20:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MetsBot

Sorry about the mistagging, I thought I had sorted that category out, but I had missed removing the tag from that article. —Mets501 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a question

Hi Art, I don't think we've ever interacted before but ever since I started editing the Main Page again I keep noticing your name popping up everywhere. Do you want to be nominated for WP:RFA? I ask only so you don't continue ramping up your edit count at WP:ERRORS. ;) No pressure, but I'd be happy to look through your history to come up with a nom. (p.s. If you've got a nasty dispute involving ArbCom or high profile users in your history, now would be the time to tell me.) - BanyanTree 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be nominated if the main purpose is WP:ERRORS, presumably so I can fix typos on the main page without waiting for an administrator. However, when I read the RfA page, it seems to take it for granted that I would be expected to take charge of arguments and decide who should be blocked or banned. That wouldn't fit my personality very well, although I have often sniped at unreasonable talk page behavior. I am involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience but not as a primary antagonist. My accusations there against User:Tommysun may upset some politically correct Wikipedians, although I don't know of anyone who actually defends him. Art LaPella 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, as long as you have a clear and credible reason that you want admin privileges, people go on to the next question. However, in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if you ran into some opposes based on a lack of edits to the project space, as this is the proxy for knowledge of policies on blocks, deletions, etc (aka the 'typical' admin stuff). I just recommend that you be clear in the RFA what you want the tools for and not get too worked up if people start asking you how you distinguish a speedy from a prod. It'll take me a bit to come up with the nom but I'll drop you a note when it's ready. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. - BanyanTree 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella is drafted. Please look over my nomination and make sure that I have not mistated a fact or have not created an expectation with which you would be uncomfortable. If I have, just let me know and I will be happy to reword. If you are OK with the nomination, please answer the standard questions, change the time to the current time and transclude the page to WP:RFA, per these instructions. Good luck! - BanyanTree 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Second thoughts? You can always decline the nomination. - BanyanTree 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I intend to accept, but I've been very busy. Thank you for the nomination. Art LaPella 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small favor

I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.


Thanks! Sharkface217 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have been blocked for spamming. Art LaPella 05:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudentenland

That's what I'm concerned about. I am warning people that when Anschluss happens at Wikipedia, it will be their own fault for not coming to the aid of those valiant soldiers fighting against facism in the Spanish Civil War. --ScienceApologist 13:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all the Republicans were Stalinist, but anyway....
I think the problem is that Wikipedia does not have an effective way to sanction disruptive editors quickly. Tommy was clearly disruptive almost from the get-go.
--ScienceApologist 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ian is more pernicious than Tommy in some ways because he is more patient and tries to push his non-mainstream POV into mainstream articles and eliminate mainstream crticism from non-mainstream articles while following the other rules to the letter (sometimes to his own detriment as when he broke 3RR because he thought he had a mandate from BLP). He also has made positive contributions to the encyclopedia while Tommy hasn't made any. I think on final evaluation, though, Ian is probably more disruptive than he is helpful. --ScienceApologist 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How many names have you called him up till now? --ScienceApologist 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, looks like your system is working out fine. --ScienceApologist 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congrats, Art. Look fwd to working with you, despite opposition. - crz crztalk 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're now an admin, so you can make all the main page grammar and spelling improvements you like! Do the best you can to take into account the concerns addressed in your RfA, and don't exceed the areas you feel comfortable in until you've read up on the policies and conventions and/or gotten some advice. If you do that, I'm confident you'll do a great job. - Taxman Talk 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I found the meta-discussions about the nature of admin-ness interesting, but it was probably a bit more uncomfortable when you were the focus of discussion. <grin> If you ever want a second opinion on some aspect of moppery that pops up, I'm usually around. Best, BanyanTree 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I oppposed you, I extend my congratulations and look forward to working with you. Yanksox 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, everybody. Art LaPella 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Thought I should congratulate you too. You deserve it more than anyone else. LestatdeLioncourt talk 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for proof reading and making changes to my DYK nomination on The Joint Expedition Against Franklin. It is my first one, and somebody recomended that I do it otherwise I would not have bothered. Thanks again for making those change! It is much appreciated. Chris Kreider 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I check DYK nominations once per day. Art LaPella 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for proofreading Colonel Denning State Park. I had no idea that sergeant and cemetery were spelled that way. At first I thought you were nuts for changing them, but I checked the dictionary and sure enough you were correct! Thanks again! Dincher 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome too. Art LaPella 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

You stated "Wikipedia needs some kind of science apologist." Can I post that on my user page and quote you? --ScienceApologist 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, assuming you noticed the qualification. Art LaPella 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin tools

mop
The mop		 Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

 mop
The flamethrower

[edit] What makes you an involved party?

Hello, Art. I notice that you've added yourself to RfAr:ScienceApologist as an involved party. Why there, but not to RfAr:Pseudoscience? I ask because I literally just became aware of your existence - you certainly weren't involved in any of the central issues I enumerated - and if not for WP:AGF, you might almost be suspected of following ScienceApologist around and "getting his back", so to speak, rendering just the sort of timely assistance to him that has been so loyally rendered by other "helpful" administrators like Pjacobi and JoshuaZ. I know you probably think that you don't have to explain your behavior, but as a gesture of fairness and good will, would you mind explaining your behavior anyway? I ask because it seems to have an element of POV and thus fails to reflect the punctilious neutrality expected of a Wikipedia administrator. Thanks, Asmodeus 08:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that I didn't formally add myself to the list at RfAr:Pseudoscience. I've only looked at one other arbitration last year, and I forget if I said anything. But of course I was involved at RfAr:Psuedoscience, where you made your presence obviously noticeable. So I now act as a somewhat interested party, not trying to take charge as an administrator - indeed, I was approved as an administrator with the idea I would only use my administrator powers on the main page for now. As for the punctilious neutrality that would be expected of such an administrator, I'm pretty sure you aren't the example of it. Art LaPella 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic slurs

I saw your comment, including your mention of "the ever-shifting standards for verifiability" in List of ethnic slurs. I think we've tried to set a single standard, the same standard a exists in the rest of Wikipedia. Nor have I noticed it changing. Have we been inconsistent? How can we be better? -Will Beback · † · 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page says "Please provide citations for all new additions, or they will be reverted", a much higher standard than what is given more than lip service in the rest of Wikipedia. Is that the single standard? In that case, we should immediately delete ABC, Banana, Beaner, Bloke, Bog Wog, Bong, Brown Sahib, and maybe A-rab, and that's just counting the A's and B's. There's a clear enough verbal consensus, but I would be more impressed with it as a consensus if it were put into practice, which would take about 10 minutes. What I see instead is an eternal merry-go-round of words going in and out for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with explicitly stated policy. Art LaPella 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't keep a constant watch on the article, but try to go through from time to time to remove unsourced entries. I see you sometimes format or copyedit unsourced entries, which you could as easily delete. When we did the iniital clean-out I left entries that had links to active WP articles. Do you think we should delete those too? -Will Beback · † · 06:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
When I think about it, a link to a long WP article (what do you mean active?) is almost as good as a citation. But that distinction hadn't occurred to me before, so I'm glad I didn't get involved in the eternal add and delete cycle while formatting or copyediting unsourced entries. Most of the linked WP articles don't do much more than repeat what is already at List of ethnic slurs, so wikilinking to such an article doesn't prove much. If there is to be any chance of ending the cycle of deleting and re-adding the same words, we could start by changing the 27 warnings to say a wikilink is good enough, or to say a long enough or referenced enough wikilink is good enough, after asking for comments on the talk page. While we're at it, the obscure Newspeak policy of "For the purposes of this list, ethnicity can be defined by either race, nationality, region, religion, or socioeconomic class" should be harmonized with the "List of ethnic slurs" title. There would have to be a really vivid line between referenced and unreferenced, between really ethnic and redefined ethnic, to stop people from just routinely re-adding everything as they do now. Talk:Big Bang handles a similar merry-go-round by printing a warning in red. Art LaPella 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said here. I'll support you if you want to go ahead and make those changes. -Will Beback · † · 20:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
After I deal with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Art LaPella 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider adding your views at Talk:William G. Tifft

Since you recently edited the Tifft article, I'm wondering if you would consider helping to get a consensus on the Talk page. See bottom of the page for details. EdJohnston 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've watched these two antagonists and their allies over a year, but I usually leave the scientific judgments to others. If this works we could try it on all their other battlegrounds such as redshift quantization and plasma cosmology. Art LaPella 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rondo query

I've answered your query about 'rondo' paintings at shaped canvas. MdArtLover 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Answered at the article's talk page. Art LaPella 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus venom

Thanks for the cleanup - I must have been dozy this morning. Yomanganitalk 01:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/User_talk%7EArt_LaPella_5694.html"