User talk:80.90.57.154

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] You and Rose-mary

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rose-mary_vs._User:80.90.57.154 (this diff [1] if that gets archived). That is what I am going on, together with editing patterns. A simple denial will not suffice: for the moment, for 3RR purposes, you will be treated together. William M. Connolley 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could get in touch with Rose-Mary through a common friend who knows her. I may tell you that she is disgusted by the way it is impossible (it was her first try) to seriously discuss on Wikipedia, because of the presence of some fanatics, and she told me that she will soon resign. This is too bad, because she looks to me as a nice person. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:15, 28 February 2006)

[edit] You have been deceived, Sir ! (from William M. Connolley talk page)

By banning me and this poor Rose-Mary as a WP editor, you have been deceived, Sir, by a bunch of guys, who, like a pack of wolves, are biting and vandalizing in alternance any redaction concerning a decipherment, that they hate, of the Phaistos Disk. Get a look at the record, and you will see that neither me nor Rose-mary, we have deleted anything. *They* have deleted simple neutral informations, useful to the ordinary WP reader, like J.Faucounau has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements... -- J.Faucounau supposes an original invention, but inspired by Egyptian Hieroglyphs -- J.F. decipherment 1975, reprinted in 1999 and 2001 after gathering evidence in reference of his solution-- etc. At the same time, Mr Torsten Timm, alias Kadmos, alias Ttimm, helped by the others, impose POV redactions as : Timmm concludes...-- Timm identifies ... -- Achterberg present a systematic comparison -- and statements of the same kind, in which adverse opinion is presented as definitive.

In addition, these guys are using all the unethical means they can, like archiving the charges against them. Let me reintroduce a Talk-page that they archived, so nobody was tempted to read this lenghty paragraph :

I thank you for reminding to all the WP principles. But I don't believe that it is me who doesn't respect them.
  1. You wrote : We are here to determine : what is the scholarly consensus. The redaction that I approve, which is the Deville 23:06,8 February, 2006, says in its header :Its purpose and meaning, and even its original geographical place of manufacture, remain disputed. Not, as some pretend : The Faucounau's solution is widely accepted by scholars, with some exceptions. Where is the non-respect by me of the WP- rules ?..
  2. You wrote: Faucounau's solution is 30 years old; it was widely published 5 years ago. Well, don't you believe that this fact needs the short explanation I gave by putting in the § List of deciphering attempts : *J.Faucounau, 1975 (interpretation as a Greek dialect, syllabic script. Reprinted in 1999 and 2001 with the evidence in favour of the "Proto-Ionic Solution" ? This information has been suppressed. Why? . As for the answer to your question : Why a 30 years old solution (and more, as J.F. has rediscovered a solution presented in 1911 by Melian Stawell !) is still not accepted by a large number of scholars, the answer is easy : Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is revolutionary, and its last details have just been published in 2005. It is a normal thing if its recognition takes some time. In fact, and I challenge anybody to show the contrary, the majority of the scholars who have seriously examined the Proto-Ionian Solution (I don't talk about those who have not made the effort to read the original books and papers) or have been rather favourable (like P. Faure), or have chosen an attentist attitude. The only exception is Yves Duhoux, but this scholar has only reviewed one book, and has not said a single word about the most important part of it : the list of the evidence in favour of the theory. Is it respecting the NPOV rule in giving to this review a preponderant place, in order to be able to call fringy the said theory?

And now, for the record : As on February 15, 2006, Latinus has threatened to report against me for violating the 3RR-rule, I accuse Latinus, Macrakis,Pmanderson,Gbrunner and Kadmos , acting separately or jointly in alternance, to have repaetedly violated the NPOV rule, in order to impose their view that the Proto-Ionian Theory- which includes a deciphering attempt of the Phaistos Disk - would be a fringe theory. This accusation is based upon the modifications they brought to the Deville redaction of 23:06,8 February, 2006 (which had remained practically unchanged since December 2005). Here is the list of the charges :

  1. modifying the redaction of the § Attempted decipherments in order to sustain the POV that there is no other way to verify a solution than applying the grid to another text, what is obviously a biaised view (See Discussion, § Incorrect Redaction and Archive 3. BTW, this archive had been arbitrarily deleted by Kadmos).
  2. modifying the § List of Decipherment attempts in order to give to the reader the impression that this theory is fringy, by citing just after the J.F.'s attempt a negative review by Y. Duhoux (in spite of the fact that a)-this paper criticizes also other attempts b)-doesn't say a word about the presented evidence) and by suppressing all the other references, like the Faure's review in the REG.
  3. suppressing in the Bibliography all the references concerning the two J.Faucounau's books which are directly related to the Phaistos Disk problem. The motives given for this suppression are disparaging and (voluntary or not) false, like for instance the ones given by Macrakis on 00:59, February 14, 2006, or Pmanderson on 20:50, February 15,2006, talking about an advertising for an Irismeister' site, not cited in the criticized redaction.

As a conclusion, I am asking for restablishing the Deville redaction, or for a mediation to put an end to this unjustified Edit-War. BTW : Why the recent discussion between Macrakis and me -in which I had apologized to have been "a bit rude" with this WP editor, but had given the reasons of my anger, i.e false statements by him- have been deleted by an unknown person ??? In order to restablish the facts, I repeat here from memory what I wrote : OK.I recognize I was a bit rude with Mr Macrakis and I apologize. But I was deeply shocked that 'a respectable Wikipedia editor' could suppress all the references concerning a theory without having read a single book or paper about it, as it was proved by the false motives he gave for this suppression ("no academic publications -- no academic references-- none of the books quoted at <scolar.google.com> are about the Proto-Ionian Theory, etc.") (User 80.90.57.154 10:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

New charges : In order to disparage the Proto-Ionic Solution, I accuse the the hereabove mentioned WP editors to have misused the WP.CITE rule, as the following shows :
  1. Confusion between fact and opinion, in order to reverse the burden of the proof (WP:CITE rule). If any opinion has to be justified by a reference, there is no need to justify an established fact, with one exception : if somebody denies it. But then, the burden of the proof is on the accusation. The denial has to be justified first. This trick has been used for the statement that "No scholar having read the text in a counter-clockwise direction has presented a reconstruction of the scribe's movements coherent with his hypothesis and with the epigraphical facts". This is a fact. Neither K.Aartun, nor D. Ohlenroth, nor M. Corsini, to cite a few of them, have presented a reconstruction of the scribe's moves, justifying their reading-direction. Would this fact be denied, the accusation has to bring first the reference of this denial.
  2. Confusion between source and endorsement. Following the WP rule, a source has to be 1)published, so it could be verified by anybody 2)-reliable. The WP.CITE says that the citing sources serves the three main purposes : a)-to ensure that the content of article is credible and can be checked by any reader, so to enhance the WP credibility b)-to show that the edit is not an original research c)-to provide more information or further reading. In the case of the Proto-Ionic Solution, the J.Faucounau's books and papers are sources by themselves because a)- they have been published by reputable editors or peer-reviewed journals, so 1)-anybody may verify their content 2)-they are not original research c)-they are credible by the fact that no one can deny that the editors and chief-editors who have accepted to publish them, were not indirectly supporting their content. There is no need therefore to demand for an endorsement, as it would be the case for a book published by some "Books on demand" editor or for a paper published by a not peer-reviewed journal. (User80.90.57.154, 10:30, 18 February 2006)
New charge against "Kadmos" for unethical conduct . Twice, the User Kadmos has manipulated the Discussion : once by archiving the most significant parts of the discussion, and after a while suppressing the archives (See § Archive hereabove) -- the second time by an arbitrary sorting of the entire discussion. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:50, 18 February 2006)

I apologize for such a lenghty message, Sir. To show you that I act in good faith, I will not interfere again in the said article before you repeal your decision, in spite of the fact that I could do it, as I have been able to edit the present message. I am confident that you will reverse your decision, in respect of the WP spirit, which is not condemning the innocent who has restablished a deleted redaction, while letting the vandalisers free to go on with their misdeeds, just because they act as a pack. Signed : the anon (different from Rose-mary, whatever the pack of wolves pretend), who has always signed 80.90.57.154, whatever the IP he uses.

The problem here is that you seem to misunderstand my role. I am not going to get involved in your content dispute (if I was, I wouldn't be blocking you). I'm only judging 3RR. Archiving: people archinve the talk pages when discussion gets long. This is part of procedure. Looking at the talk, I see 4 archives - how are the archives being suppressed? The talk page is currently 38k long, which is getting long all by itself (and arch4 was 160k! definitely in need of trim). William M. Connolley 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, Sir. Seems to me difficult judging about WP:3RR if you don't look at whom is deleting, and whom is restablishing the deleted part. When a bunch of three guys are deleting in alternance, and only one is restablishing, the WP:3RR rule will be injustly applied to the lonely guy, as it has been the case here. The archives are not suppressed, thanks to the intervention of a WP administrator. They were suppressed (See § Archive in Archive n° 4). As I already wrote, I see no objection in archiving, as long as access to the archive does exist. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:30, 28 February 2006)
When people find many people editing against them, they often consider it to be "unfair", but its not. William M. Connolley 17:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

It is not against me, but against a theory which has been published in peer-reviewed books and journals and has been judged sufficiently "serious" to suscitate at least three scholarly comments. What is unfair - and above all discrediting Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia- is trying to wrongly present this theory as fringy, and, at the same time, developping references and large comments for a concurrent theory, published in Books on Demand if not in some url. I have nothing against mentioning such other theories, in application of the NPOV rule. But on an equality. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:50, 28 February 2006)

Archive: yes, looks like there was a problem there, since solved. Why are you signing comments of ...99 as ...154? [2] William M. Connolley 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the problem has been solved. I mentioned it only to show the unethical conduct of my adversaries. For diverse reasons, I change very often my IP. So, for not confusing people who read me, I always sign with the same. (User 80.90.57.154, 17:52, 28 February 2006)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/0/2E/User_talk%7E80.90.57.154.html"