User talk:64.237.4.140

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, smtp.macys.com, is registered to Macy's, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Stop putting commercial links in articles as Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement. All commercial links added will be removed immediately.

Contents

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Primary source, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Primary source was changed by 64.237.4.140 (c) (t) deleting 10146 characters on 2007-11-19T23:28:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence

I've reverted one of your edits. Please discuss it on talk. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Hi, please read WP:3RR. You have reverted twice on the Private correspondence page. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence 2

Please consider this an official warning. If you blank sections without discussion on the talk page, particularly while claiming to be expert on how things are done on Wikipedia, you may be blocked temporarily as a 3RR evasion. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. I didn't blank anything, I rewrote it because it was wrong. What ever happened AGF? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have taken Lawrence Cohen's advice and, in all your knowledge of Wikipedia laws, taken a look at the 3RR. As for "bullying," this is standard practice at Wikipedia: when you have an opinion that is not agreed to by the majority, when there is no consensus, you must discuss the changes and work toward consensus. This is especially true of IP editors, who are presumably changing identities. They therefore should be stable, so that they can have coherent discussions. There is no requirement to log in to edit, but there most emphatically is one for attempting to revert repeatedly. Changing identities after a warning is de facto evidence of an attempt at evasion. Given that you are lecturing everyone on how things are really done at Wikipedia, the conclusion that you are a regular user logging out to evade 3RR is inescapable. You are free to deny this, of course, and we can get an RFCU to be sure, but it would be much simpler if you learned to work with the existing consensus or took the time to build a new one. Geogre (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you do that RFCU on me. And I suggest that you AGF and treat me an anon with the same respect afforded those with screennames. I can see why that proposed policy is so out of step with reality: Privacy and respect for anonymity are core Wikipedia priniciples and completely absent in those running the show by tag teaming the page. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You know how things work at Wikipedia, but not 3RR, or you say that violating that rule is acceptable because you were up against a tag team. That "tag team" would otherwise be known as numbers -- otherwise known as consensus, would it not? You, however, appear to be in a minority of one in your opinion, and yet you insist upon it -- insist so much that you believe yourself to be unbound by policy -- and this is because of how just correct you are about how things are done at Wikipedia? My goodness, but this certainly sounds like disruption, foot stamping, and then belligerance. I am sorry you are not getting your way. I'm sorry, too, that you are demonstrating pique. However, you must not insist on edits, if there is no consensus for them. You must especially not insist on your edits being the right ones for Wikipedia policies, when you remain logged out and thus incapable of demonstrating any such familiarity. One assumes good faith, until the other person demonstrates bad faith -- which is just what you did with the multiple reverts. To assume good faith beyond that requires being stupid, not charitable. Don't ask people to be stupid. Geogre 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politization of Science

Please stop making nonconstructive reversions of the Politicization of science page. Can you explain what your issue is with the definition? Whether it's from Hoover or not, it still seems like a workable definition to me. Just because you have a different ideology, doesn't mean that the definition is wrong. And even so-- if that's what you disagree with, why does the ENTIRE article need to be reverted? Why not work in the areas that you disagree with? Please consider this a warning. If you don't stop, I will refer this to an admin for moderation. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the article's history will see it's clear that the version I'm restoring has stood for over a year and it is you who is trying to force in wholesale changes to the article. Exactly the same changes originally made by Ed Poor who is on arbcom probation for disruptive editing. It seems Ed has found a way around that probation.
Since you are the one who is trying to change the landstanding text, I suggest you stop edit warring and instead make your case on the talk page. Meat puppetry to game an arbcomm sanction is highly frowned upon BTW. Read WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. I suggest you think long and hard about what your edit warring over Ed's POV edits means in light of that. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I just found this article a few days ago and tried to improve it. I've made hundreds of edits on wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my original revision. If you disagree with the Hoover cite, fine, but I don't know how you could argue that it wasn't an improvement. If so, please let me know where the disagreement was. The only reason I was reverting was because ALL of my edits were being lost seemingly because of one disagreement. [1]Athene cunicularia If you scroll down, you can even see that I added a section about abuse of science at the Department of the Interior. Believe me, I am not looking to republicanize the article. (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2 and paying more attention to who's versions you support. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I wrote the new version MYSELF the other night. Did you even look at it beyond the first sentence?Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet your's repeated the same exact definition as Ed Poor's version, using the same source, and removed the same bits: Ed's vs Athene's You still say you wrote that yourself? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, I just sat down and started editing it based on what was there. I removed some content and added some content. I had no input from anyone else. Like I said, though, right before the page was locked, we don't necessarily need Hoover to define Politicization, but I still like the definition used. I don't think that there is any disputing that it is the "manipulation of science for political gain". My disagreement is with the reversion of the complete article, which, in my opinion, greatly improved it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Three wholesale reverts in 24 hours. It's beginning to make it difficult for the rest of us to collaborate. Please chime in at talk:Politicization of science#POV dispute with your specific objections. Perhaps these objections can be accomodated, such as the Hoover Institute thing. I don't particularly care whom we quote for a definition of politicization. Let's work together, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please. I know your history of POV promotion and I know your methods of appearing reasonable while relentlessly promoting a particular POV, I've read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2. Your were placed on probation for all of that, and finding a meat puppet or two to revert to your version in your stead will not hide the fact that your version is highly POV since it relies on a partisan source to define the topic and removes notable conservative examples like ID. That may work at Conservapedia but not here. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politicization part II

Okay, I'm tired of this ridiculous arguing. Is your position honestly that you think the article is completely perfect in its current state, and can't be improved at all? Do me a favor and look at the last edit that I made, where I removed the cite to Hoover. What other areas do you strongly disagree with?Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal of ID, any condensing of the current examples for starters. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove ID, as far as I know. I have no problem including ID on the page, unless it lacks appropriate citation, but I'm sure there is plenty of material out there. And why can't the current sections be condensed? There were a lot of problems with those sections when I edited them, namely, clearly biased claims, unsupported claims, and overall, bloat.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I figured out what was going on. Ed had asked me to take a look at a revision, and I did an extensive edit on it. Apparently it was HIS revision, though, not the current one, as I had assumed. I feel a little tricked--and that's why my edits look like his. At any rate, I want to keep working on the article, but I'm going to wait to do anything until it is unlocked. At that time, I will work to cleanup the version as it is right now, not the version that Ed is supporting.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science

To divert a potential edit war, please explain your reasons why the version you reverted is "better", on the talk page. The version you reverted is essentially identical except your reverted version *) contains a spelling error and *) has an unnecessary WL (evolution is wl several which ways already). Giving a reason "why" you think that version is better would be helpful. Thanks Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hyo Jin Moon

Could you be more specific than "wrongfully deleted" when you revert changes? I have begun a discussion at talk:Hyo Jin Moon. Please join me there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)