User talk:Metamagician3000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1: January - April 2006 /Archive 2: May 2006 /Archive 3: June - August 2006

Contents 1 A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael 2 Template:User Nogus 3 Satire and merry japes 4 Winhunter's RfA thanks 5 Your AN comments 6 SuperJumbo 7 Eric Lerner 8 Your Science Fiction leader - I like it! 9 Redshift 10 Departing note 11 You got there before I did! 12 Re: Indef block notices 13 Pseudoscience dispute 14 Nice clear analysis 15 Gundagai 16 banning Eric Lerner 17 Stephen Colbert 18 Please forgive this brazilian guy for the Magneto's discussion 19 Pseudoscience vandalism 20 Caution violation ? 21 Withdrawn 22 Your input is requested 23 Frankenstein counter-argument for Transhumanism

[edit] A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

I'd like to thank you Metamagician3000 for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             —Xyrael / 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Nogus

• [1] John Reid 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. Metamagician3000 06:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satire and merry japes

You nearly made me spit a beverage through my nose here. It's amazing how rare a laugh can be in some of these discussions. Thanks. Dina 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - you made my day. :) Metamagician3000 05:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Dina. Newyorkbrad 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winhunter's RfA thanks

Hi Metamagician3000, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your AN comments

Hello :-) I really appreciate you making comments on AN and AN/I. I read your comments about Everyking and think that you frame the issues exactly right. The banned user that Everyking was helping made it clear that s/he was up to no good. The community can no longer trust Everyking to make good choices with his admin tools. Keep weighing in. We need to hear from sensible users. Take care, FloNight 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's been a funny few days here. Metamagician3000 05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Having come here to praise your several attempts to defuse the SuperJumbo situation, I should, I suppose, observe that, like FloNight, I am quite often impressed by the fashion in which you frame issues passim here; even as our views as to the proper disposition of issues sometimes diverge (as, for example, apropos of the Everyking desysopping), you never cease properly to parse discussions and then, civilly and with an eye toward rational, logical argument, to participate in such discussions. Joe 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. I needed some encouragement today. Metamagician3000 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperJumbo

I appreciate the heads-up. As I – and many others – have advised SuperJumbo, there would be no problem with lifting the block if he'd agree not to make these contested changes until the policy issues are cleared up. I don't want to leave a good-faith contributor blocked, but I would prefer not to see him unblocked if he's just going to go back to making controversial edits. The dates will still be there to be 'fixed' (if deemed necessary) in two or three weeks, after the stakeholders have a chance to discuss and establish and appropriate policy (and interpretation thereof).

As Nunh-huh advised SuperJumbo (in a comment now deleted by SJ) [2]:

If you get both strong support and strong opposition for something you are doing, then there is no consensus that you should be doing it. That's not an impossible position, it's a sign that you should stop doing that thing, and that you shouldn't do it again until and unless a consensus that you should be doing it has been found. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's excellent advice to any Wikipedia editor faced with a question about the interpretation of policy, and I hope that SJ eventually takes it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for now lifting his block and giving him some sound advice. I hope he can henceforth edit in a way that is productive and doesn't provoke people. Metamagician3000 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Lerner

I wasn't sure from your last post, whether you still have time to cast an eye over the discussions, but I would really appreciate you taking a look at ScienceApologist comments after yours. --Iantresman 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what to do from here, but will think about it. I'd love to flick it over to a mediator if we could find someone good. Metamagician3000 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection but have gotten no response. What happens now?Elerner 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's now a response. Metamagician3000 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Science Fiction leader - I like it!

Hi M, I've just been looking at the past work you did on the Science Fiction leader, and I think it's really good, and should not have been so thoroughly replaced by something far less elegant. If you've been watching that article, you may have seen that I have been trying myself (With Hayford Peirce's help) to create a readable but useful leader (before I went back through the historical versions), and I have essentially highlighted the idea of the novum (the novelty, the change, the difference, the strangeness) that you spoke about, although I got this from a rather different source, and have possibly put it less poeticaly. I see you are an Australian academic, so I may have bumped into you on some campus or other. I'd be very pleased if you would come back and help me with the sci-fi leader or heap scorn on it or whatever. See ya. Leeborkman 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee - I thought I'd keep away from the article for awhile (as I've done) to let my comments on the talk page be absorbed, rejected, or whatever, but I haven't given up on it entirely. Will have a look when I get a chance. Any new lead will have to take account of the various critiques on the talk page, of course. I do have views as to why sf defies definition, but they would constitute original research.

I think the novum idea eventually has to be sourced in some way to Darko Suvin. It's kind of his baby, and a lot of people (well, at least a lot academics) consider him to be the theorist of sf.

Yeah, I'm currently at Monash - actually hanging around the School of Philosophy and Bioethics, though I did once work in the English dept ... among other things that I've done over the years, like picking up a law degree and working in legal practice for awhile. Long, long story... Metamagician3000 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redshift

I would value your opinion. ScienceApologist recently requested Scientific peer review for the article on Redshift, and I gave two criticisms. I feel they were quite suitable. Apparently he does not, removing them to the discussion page [3], not only describing them as "non-scientific", but also commenting on me as an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist",[4] and consequently judging my comments out of hand.

At best I consider this uncivil on a number of levels, not least that other editors will not now get to see my comments and judge them for themselves, at worse, I feel he is trying to discredit me. What would you suggest?

I hesitate to mention that this is not the first such incident,[5] and last time I took the matter further, although it was looked at sypathetically by two admins, all hell broke loose,[6] and I was even cautioned by another admin.[7] --Iantresman 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the material from the page as he has done. That said, the point is to get fresh input from people with scientific expertise in the field, rather than input from someone already involved in the article. I think you should take a back seat somewhat with this. I don't think you should have posted there, but I also think it was rather high-handed to remove your post. I'll make a comment on the talk page, but I suggest you let it go. Metamagician3000 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I still feel a bit put out.

• If there was no reason to remove my comments, shouldn't they be restored?
• After all, I didn't post a debate, but a crtitical comment, which appears wholly consistent with the guidelines on Wikipedia:Scientific peer review
• My comments will not now receive a fresh assessment from "expert" editors, as they were removed by an editor with a conflict of interest.
• If my comments turn out to be of little value, then they will just be ignored by other editors, but at least due process will have taken place. --Iantresman 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Departing note

For one reason and another, I've decided lately to pack up my Wikipedian tools and go ply my wordsmithing skills elsewhere. It's been a great ride — I got five of my own pet projects on the Main Page, after all! — but gravity is setting in, potential energy has changed for kinetic and then degraded into heat, and everything that sounds like fun seems to involve more than a little capital-R Original Research. A few things remain to be wrapped up, but all the places where I figured "I'm the only one who can do this" are basically as good as I can leave them.

I had a great time bouncing ideas back and forth in Talk:Transhumanism and elsewhere, and I hope life (both in-wiki and ex-wiki) treats you well.

Be seeing you. Anville 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't lose touch. You're a great editor - one of the people who make the project worthwhile. I'm taking a semi-break myself to recharge. Metamagician3000 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck recharging. Anville 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You got there before I did!

m (→Indefinite detention - delete misleading word - the views discussed immediately before were not dissenting ones) I saw that same error as you did, was going to come back to it to fix it, but you got there first! Good to see that wikipedians are always on the ball. Kudos...SkinnyZan 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! :) Metamagician3000 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Indef block notices

Just following procedure... :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience dispute

/Re pseudoscience dispute

[edit] Nice clear analysis

Well said, my friend. --Rednblu 17:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gundagai

Thanks for your offer of support. Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] banning Eric Lerner

Hi,

I'm not sure whether you are one of arbitrators involved in the "psedoscience" action, but if you are I'd like you to seriously look at the effort to ban me. I've summarized the situation on the "proposed decision" talk page.

Thanks, Eric Elerner 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an arbitrator. As you know, I have some fleeting involvement with the case - though as a neutral admin, not a party. I also have a great interest in how Wikipedia deals with these issues. On that basis, I've been expressing my ideas and commenting on the case, but it is really up to Fred Bauder and the other arbitrators, and the appropriate place to raise issues is where you have done so, i.e. the "proposed decision" talk. I'll be continuing to monitor that page. Metamagician3000 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

Yes, it was an accidental revert (I was trying to fix the vandalism but was "beaten to the punch"). I left a note of apology under the talk page. Oberiko 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

kk, when I looked at your userpage and talk page I figured something like this must have happened. I should have thought to check the talk page of the article itself. I'm sorry to bother you about it and awfully glad I didn't shoot from the hip at you. :) Metamagician3000 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please forgive this brazilian guy for the Magneto's discussion

I thought the people could talk about the characters. It won't happen anymore.Brazilian Man 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and no harm done. It's just that a personal opinion like the one you expressed on the talk page is not something we can deal with in the article unless someone else has already published it somewhere. I just thought I'd clear it up for you because I happened to know the answer, thanks to a misspent youth reading X-Men comics. :) Metamagician3000 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience vandalism

Sorry, which pages do you mean? As far as I know, I've never vandalized a page. --Iantresman 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you call this? Metamagician3000 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Now that is interesting. Despite my name appearing under the edit, I can assure you that I nothing to do with this edit. Nothing in my edit history suggests anything like this.
• I did indeed make an edit "Final decision clarification" which queried some issues, and as with all my posts, I double checked that it went through successfully.
• Either there was a glitch on the system (unlikely), or someone with privileges greater than mine, has modified my edit.
• I am sure that Wikipedia keeps an extensive log, and it should be possible to check this edit with the IP address of the person who made it.
• I may not agree with everyone, but I'm not stupid. I'd have nothing to gain from such an edit... it would be reverted, and obviously a record would point to me.
• I believe that Administrators have more extensive tools to check this out. Do you know how I can go about this? --Iantresman 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 has just posted a note saying that a weird post happened to him too. Odd that mine appeared to be appropriately inappropriate. --Iantresman 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're basically saying that your account has been hacked or something similar? If that's the truth of it, it exonerates you of course, but it's a serious situation that can't be allowed to remain like that for your own sake. If it happened to me, I'd quickly change my password, then seek advice about what else I should do from someone with higher powers, like one of the arbitrators or one of the bureaucrats - perhaps by e-mail if you don't want discussion all over the wiki. I do admit I was surprised that you'd make such an edit; it seemed out of character. Whatever else is alleged about you, I've never seen you do anything remotely like this in the past.

[After edit conflict]. Hmmmm, someone needs to get to the bottom of this. Metamagician3000 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken my comments to the talk page of the decision. That seems like the best place for discussion now that there are other people involved. I do accept that this action would have been out of character, so sorry to accuse you of it ... though of course I don't blame myself, either, as the record was clear. Something or someone has caused problems for several of us. Metamagician3000 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you for something we had no control over. I don't think my account was hacked... my actual edit was replaced by the vandalized text. And I'm pretty sure that my original edit appeared as expected, as I always check my posts. It is not possible to hack an account, and replace one edit with another. Which leads me to suspect a glitch in the system, or someone with system privileges. --Iantresman 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... given that you did actually make an edit which didn't appear, hacking of your account seems to be ruled out. Also, I seriously doubt that it was malice by someone with higher-than-admin system privileges. Given that something odd also happened to Thatcher, I now think we should just write it off as a technical glitch. Metamagician3000 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caution violation ?

• The recent "Pseudoscience" Arbitration decision has ScienceApologist down for a caution (I'm on Probation). The latter has a one-page explanation, but I can find nothing on what the implications are, for being cautioned.
• I am already in disagreement with ScienceApologist over the inclusion of a quote in the Redshift quantization article, see the discussion "POV" in Talk:Redshift quantization, where he finally agreed to restored a particular quote. But he disagreed again, and rather than correct it himself, has deleted it yet again, and added some more conditions.
• The caution notes that it is "in spirit as well as letter". I feel that the recent exchange is not. Since I am on probation, I don't want to rock the boat unnecessarily. Am I being unreasonable to mention it? --Iantresman 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see the caution it is just that - he is cautioned against engaging in personal attacks, incivility, etc., and there are also findings that some of his past edits were over the line. He has not been placed on probation, so technically he is no different position from that of any other editor, but he has been made to understand that some of his past behaviour could have consequences if repeated. As far as I can see, however, he is currently being civil on the relevant talk page. I don't think you're being unreasonable mentioning your concern to me, but I see no real issue of conduct here, as opposed to disagreements about content. If I've missed something, tell me - but that's how I see it right now. Metamagician3000 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to give support to a great editor and fine admin. In my opinion, you have been totally exonerated in the past incidents that have caused controversy, but I guess any controversy is likely to blight people's candidatures for something as sensitive as arbcom. Metamagician3000 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated..if there is anything you need, never hesitate to ask.--MONGO 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein counter-argument for Transhumanism

• The Yuck Factor Activists try to patent fear.

• Anti-Cloning Disinformation? Desperate opponents try to frighten lawmakers with bogus scares.

• Right-Wing Biological Dread The Subhumans are coming! The Subhumans are coming!

Metamagician, could you please synthetize and summarize Bailey's arguments in the three articles linked to above? Once this is done, we could had it to the Dehumanization section as a counter-argument that would come before the one that is already there. Once this is done, I think the Transhumanism article will finally be finished except for minor updates from time to time. --Loremaster 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)