User talk:Lordvolton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Lordvolton! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! A Ramachandran 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Simulated reality

Please do not add this article back to see also lists when people remove it. You have seriously overdone it. Some of those articles are so distantly related as to make the link completely pointless. A Ramachandran 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What is it with this obsession? --Loremaster 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
All you have succeeded in doing is attracting the attentio of editors who would like to delete the page.1Z 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If they were to delete the page then that that would say a lot about wikipedia and its editors.
Or about the page
However, since they have not deleted the page it's unfair and premature to jump to conclusions. So far they seem like a reasonable bunch.

[edit] Computationalism

why did you move computaionalism?1Z 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I was trying to put related concepts together so that the material would flow a little better -- but since some of it has now been removed my original intent might be moot.

[edit] Alphabetising Links

I do not not want the links alphabetised. I didn't even realise that was what you were doing. Sorry. I believe that I was trying to revert some vandalism and reverted the wrong edit. I apologise. --Catalyst2007 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Holonomic brain theory on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Catalyst2007 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an experiment. It was an attempt to alphabetize the links. Unless you prefer disorder over order?

[edit] Your edits to Shi Tao

Please do NOT remove foreign characters from articles. If you see all "???"s, I recommend installing the right language support on your computer. Nardman1 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend translating a version into Chinese rather than filling an English version with Chinese characters.

[edit] Occam's razor

I don't object to your criticisms because they are criticisms, I object to them because they are incomprehensible. You need to explain why the razor might not be applicable to the SH and what relevance the existence of dreaming has to the SH.

it is a heuristic rule, and not a natural law, it is not an infallible guide as to what is ultimately the truth, but only what is usually best to believe, all other things being equal. Assuming Occam's Razor were applicable to the Simulation Hypothesis [citation needed], it would tell us to reject it as being too complex, in favor of reality being what it appears to be. However, critics point out that all things are not equal, as evidenced by our dreams [citation needed], and therefore this analysis does not apply. Another objection is that when all things are equal the simple answer can still be wrong.

1Z 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreaming

Oh come on. It's a link to your own blog. See WP:V, "Self-published sources". 1Z 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

________

This is a rehash of the discussion section. The purpose was to illustrate a point -- when you (Peter Jones) link to either your own blog or what purports to be your "buddies" blog to make further argumentative points it weakens the article.

I haven't linked to my own blog. If you have alternative references, feel free to add them.

So far your reaction to a "citation needed" tag has been to delete it.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The result is people create wikis and blogs to refute you. You're dedicated to coming a conclusion for the reader rather than allowing readers to come to their own conclusion.

You've obviously researched a lot of areas and that's a good thing, but sometimes you bring too much information to a section and ask too much of the reader. The result is too much information that is off topic. Computability of Physics is a good example.

You're the only one who seems to have that problem.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first paragraph you state it doesn't really apply and things are safe and then go into a long drawn out analysis. Why? Simply if it and make it comprehensible. Lordvolton 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood.1Z 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulated Reality Needs You

Hi LV, Please jump back to simulated reality to help me a little with peter. He is a little bit argumentative rather than constructive. I noticed that occums doesnt really apply here because "all things being equal" (I saw that logical error before noticing that anyone else had the same objection) Also I did a good re-org that he blocked. Artman772000 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000

[edit] How Societies Remember by Paul Connerton

I'm not sure what you were trying to do linking the book into multiple articles on 27 December 2007. I'm removing them per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the logic behind the links are self-explantory and your reference to the linking rules doesn't help. The links were to the book itself and not a webpage. So you need to be more specific.
As a external link that you added to multiple article at the same time, I think it qualifies as a spammed link per WP:SPAM. I don't think it meets WP:EL either, even if you had only added it to one article. And you added nothing but links to these articles, so I think you should look over WP:NOT#LINK as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
See especially Wikipedia:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer #2, #5, and #6, as well as Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #5. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be arbitrarily deciding what is "SPAM". I didn't write the book. It's relevant to the content which is why it's linked.
I'm doing my best to follow the policies and guidelines that I've listed. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that twice now ([1] and [2]) you've added back the same link. There are many approaches we can use to resolve this dispute. I've tried to discuss it here with you, and have also commented on talk pages of the two articles where you've restored the link. WP:THIRD is a good way to get a neutral editor to examine the situation. Perhaps we should try it? --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So far you haven't been able to independently come up with an argument that is convincing. Simply calling something SPAM or referencing a Wikipedia link doesn't help much. Precisely why, without linking or deferring to a rule you cannot explain yourself, do you think it's not appropriate? And be specific. For example, "After reading XYZ I feel that the link to this author's work is not related because INSERT YOUR REASONING. I know who the author is and why you linked, but I believe that because INSERT YOUR REASON it's not appropriate."
Before going to a tribunal you must first be able to communicate WHY something is not to your liking. This isn't a popularity contest. I'm reasonable... but you must REASON with me for that to occur.

[edit] CCC

You wrote [3] "I wanted to open it up for some additional discussion to make sure that others were allowed to participate before a final decision was made." You're too late. A decision has been made, you cannot undo it by this means. There is an appeals process against AFD if you insist William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement causes collapse

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Measurement causes collapse, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Measurement causes collapse. Melchoir (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comment on my talk page, I've added my comments to the article regarding the deletion. Just out of interest, what made you think I might have something to say on the matter? --Rebroad (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for creating the Measurement causes collapse page. It is a huge improvement over what was in the CCC page. Nhall0608 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Measurement causes collapse

An article that you have been involved in editing, Measurement causes collapse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse. Thank you. Melchoir (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Melchoir (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for you

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For knowing when an admin was wrong. Keep doing what you believe is right, even when others say you are wrong. Malamockq (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

I've blocked you for incivility. Lets try to keep the AFD polite, shall we? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley's feathers were ruffled by the following comment:
"William if you have any sense of integrity you'll place the same "this user was canvassed" notice beneath Peter Jones. Or do you only want to complain about those who disagree? It turns out, contrary to your assumptions and accusations, that wikipedians have their own minds and the ability to exercise free will. Lordvolton (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"
Did he rise to the occasion and give the same treatment to everyone? Not surprisingly, he did not. Instead he chose to abuse his admin authority, as he's done in the past, and punish those who disagree with him.
Is this the best wikipedia has to offer? Lordvolton (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For a full transcript please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "personal bias, see my talk page."

Decline reason: "incivility was very clear. at least three phrases used were inappropriate. — BozMo talk 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Fair enough, so when I get a list of similar phrases uttered by William Connolley is he going to get the same treatment? Or will there be a double standard?

______________


I see that BozMo and William are editing pals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_to_Sea


Anyway, here are some of William Connolley's greatest hits:


“Ed, you can't even spell my name right, let alone do the science. Go on: ***in what way is that statement controversial?”

“Good grief. He can't keep his own homepage up to date.”

“Sloooowly you are getting there.”

“yet more pap. repeat after me: I do *not* need to have the last word.”

“Ed, this is stupid.”

“Just when it looked like we might agree... Ed makes a hairy mess.”

“Ed, you've lost countless arguments on the GW pages, don't re-open them here.”

“Feel free to waste your time, but in future could you please avoid wasting mine?”

“enough tedious ambiguity”

“What are you talking about, old fruit?”


The condescension and ridicule of others is obvious. But I don’t suppose his editing buddy, Bozmo, will do much about it.

I am flattered that I might have a "buddy". Am I yours now I have edited your talk page? Seriously though there is a difference between bluntness and rudeness. You didn't really have a case about him pointing out the canvas since you, not he, had canvassed both... "abuse of admin power", claiming he had made an accusation without providing a diff (I did have a look in his editing history) etc. is language which you should not make without a good case. --BozMo talk 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And you expect us to believe that you appeared on the measurement causes collapse afd page by sheer coincidence? I think not.
When someone is blocked and they request the assistance of a third party the process assumes the third party is non-biased. You should have recused yourself, but I guess you assumed I wouldn't do any research and uncover your connection to William?
What is the process to have these matters turned over to a higher authority? Lordvolton (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have a similar impression of Connolley, that is, dismissive of what he perceives to be factious complaints from the opposing side. In my case, we would seem to agree with content issues, but not about ethical pursuit of consensus. But it would be nice (or rather, more effective to complain) if someone who hasn't been blocked by him, shared this view. Mostly we just sound like people whining for having been blocked; since no third party questions his conduct, he can just ignore what appears as mere whining. Do all third parties merely agree with him? Or are they merely unwilling to go to so much trouble? I don't know. Both Connolley and Ronz simply ignore the WQA. Pete St.John (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The ethical pursuit of consensus is a major problem on Wikipedia. In my case the editor who proposed an article for deletion went to a talk page to garner support. In response I left a comment on a handful of editors with editing backgrounds on the topic advising them they might be interested in the article and the discussion, without any reference to voting or encouraging them to do anything unethical.
William then took it upon himself to make a comment beneath anyone who was in favor of keeping the article, even if they had previously edited similar topics. Of course, when one of them agreed with him he made no such editorial comment about them. Highlighting his arrogance and hypocrisy. Then he blocked me for pointing that out.
To make matters worse his admin buddy denied my appeal and then showed up on the afd page and voted for deletion. It's obvious that some of these editors abuse their authority and coordinate their efforts to delete or censor information that doesn't agree with them.
I also did some research and found that he had mishandled other situations. He has since reverted some of my comments on his talk page regarding that bungled mediation.
I guess it's up to all of us to hold these rogue admins accountable. Lordvolton (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I did not look at the case so I'm not giving an opinion on it. But I for one am surprised that BozMo, who I considered ethical from my experience, went so far as to endorse a block by WMC. They certainly can be considered to work together on Wikipedia. And there is indeed a double standard in Wikipedia about civility. WMC is obviously immune, and so are some other admins known to side with him, while they can use their powers to enforce this policy when it suits them. I would not know where to start if I was to look for compelling instances. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Gosh flattered twice. The secret Cabal must be worse than the Spanish Inquisition if it took nearly 5 hours or however long it was to arrive. On one checkable fact I turned up on the deletion page first and then set off to your talk page to warn (not block, I am a softie) you about incivility. Your reaction to the block made it clear the ban had been the right call, you were still holding forth without apology. And sure, someone like me who has 15 years working as a senior manager for an oil company is so just bound to end up "working together" with a long term Green Party candidate like him that its a fair cop. And we all know about holding Rouge Admins to account. Of course, I repeat that the block (and a block is no big deal even WMC has been blocked) was kept because it was justified and you were going off the deep end at a deletion discussion. Childhood's End why not look through the edits more carefully? My respect for you (which exists, as does sympathy for your frustration with how these things sometimes go) would be greater if you joined in only when there really was a case to make. --BozMo talk 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh perhaps. But one of WMC's quips above was in fact directed at me recently, so I felt involved. As I said, I did not judge the block. I only think that you should not endorse WMC's blocks for transparency reasons. As you can see, it raised questions very quickly.
Also, we both know that there are problems with how things are handled sometimes. I think that the rouge admin page, which essentially jokes about this, only makes things worst, even though I would concur that admins, as a group, are subject to some criticism that is way out of line from time to time. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am thankful Childhood's End took the time to confirm that you and William work together, a fact that you apparently attempted to deny. If you were not an administrator I wouldn't be taking issue with you, but because editors place their faith in admins to treat them fairly I hold you to a higher standard.
Again, the proper course of action would have been to recuse yourself. And once I appealed the block that you were reviewing, absent recusal, you certainly should not have then gone into the afd page and supported the deletion of the article that originally caused the strife between myself and William. And after that you should not have threatened me with a block for accidentally miss spelling his name.
Lastly, you should not have discounted the thoughts of Childhood's End. Lordvolton (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with this block. What Lordvolton said was strong, but not incivil. I have seen much worse. Users using capslock, and screaming. William, you have said worse things. At most, a friendly reminder of being civil, would have been appropriate, but not a full block. Malamockq (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BOZMO'S THREAT

The excerpt below is taken from William Connolley's talk page. Initially I wasn't quite sure what BozMo was talking about when he threatened to block me. I now realize he was referencing my accidental miss spelling of the last name "Connolley" as "Connelly".

This is the kind of rogue administration that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

For a review of this same issue please see my talk page. Mr. Connelly is hardly the admin to be providing clarification regarding civility. Lordvolton (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, deliberately getting a name or title wrong is also uncivil. You have done this to Dr Connolley twice, lets not end up with you getting another incivility ban, eh? --BozMo talk 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? So you're threatening me with a block for complaining about the process itself? I'd like to request that someone review this entire discourse and determine whether you should be given authority to ban or block anyone who finds your abuse of administrative authority disturbing. Lordvolton (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton, I think you have kind of reached a decision point. Would you like to engage with the community and join in helping write Wikipedia or do you want to play the role of someone who complains about conspiracy and shadows? If you do want to be a constructive editor I am quite prepared to take the time and effort to explain patiently why your conduct was inappropriate, and how to help. Personally I don't mind putting this rather bad tempered episode behind us but if you want to carry on in the same vain because that's what you enjoy, then it will take you where it takes you. --BozMo talk 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, BozMo. I'm always very supportive of admins, as I know the kinds of nonsense they have to wade through, but claiming that mispelling "Connelley" as "Connelly" twice is deliberate is reading something into a situation that just isn't there from a neutral point of view. Connelly is a more common spelling, and two mistakes does not make a deliberate campaign. I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy or other such nonsense here, but I think that you need to take a deep breath and think a little here. Ianbetteridge (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Vain? Anyway, its Connolley William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something for you to think about

It looks as if you've become rather heated following the deletion of an article on a subject in which you are interested. This is not uncommon. Your comments since have been somewhat problematic, leading I see to a brief block. I'd like to give you a small piece of advice from someone who has been around here for a while and also gets angry about content disputes. The advice is this: remove all related articles and debates from your watchlist, and make a note to come back in maybe six months. Don't touch them in the mean time. Don't go to the talk pages of admins involved in the dispute, and don't try to argue that you were right all along, because having looked at the block you received I have to say that 8 hours was at the lenient end of blocks we hand out for that kind of comment. There's no point baiting the admins, because the admins are just folks. We're all volunteers here, after all. I can tell you form long past experience that escalating the dispute will only result in your gaining a reputation as a troublemaker, and that can take a while to shake off. You've had your say on the subject of consciousness causes collapse / measurement causes collapse, people have listened to what you say, but have chosen to disagree. Life, I'm afraid, is like that: people will not always agree with you. So, document what is documentable from reliabel sources at quantum mysticism, then remove that from your watchlist and move on. You will be much less wound up if you do that. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, I can understand his frustration about the outcome since the subject was obviously notable, was decided upon by profane editors, and was essentially deleted on the ground that it amounts to some pseudoscience, whereas it has been overlooked that quantum physics are still borderline themselves despite being more mainstream. The witch hunt against what is perceived to be pseudoscience in Wikipedia produces bad effects from time to time. But still, imo, Guy's whole advice above is very sound. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the content, it reads like nonsense to me, but most quantum mechanics does, I am an electrical engineer so I think anything less than half an amp is leakage. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I discussion

Hello, Lordvolton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Getting a bit bored with User:Lordvolton. —Travistalk 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)