User talk:SalvNaut/Archive 2

Archives

1, 2

_

Useful links

Hello, SalvNaut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours, because evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SalvNaut shows that you have used the account User:MarkCentury to break the 3RR at Steven E. Jones. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal by placing the text text{{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SalvNaut (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Whaat?? Is this some kind of a joke? I am not anyone's sockpuppet. You base your assumption on some edit which is the same - in this case this means one(1) same word: "peer-reviewed". I want this to be explained and Arthur Rubin to apologize. This kind of actions are ridiculous. SalvNaut 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I concur with the assessment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SalvNaut. — Sandstein 19:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ive been secretly looking at this block and curiosly waiting the outcome. I just wanted to add my two cents in case anyone cares. I have been accused of sock puppetry by admins when i know i had nothing to do with it. I see a lot of cases like this that really don't have a leg to stand on. So some guy agreed with him when he was at his 3rr limit, so that guy has agreed with him before. So what, is it automatically sock puppetry when someone often agrees with the logic of someone else? I think this whole thing is absurd and the rules for claiming sock puppetry should be a bit stricter. If your going to block someone or accuse them of this you should have a bit more evidence then this (like trace the ip's see if they come from the same town). This whole thing is ridiculous, i agree with salv, and i really hope he gets that apology he is looking for. Of course now ill probably be blamed of being his sock puppet and get banned, lol. Best of luck! Debeo Morium 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anyone's sockpuppet and I want this to be cleared out. Can anyone tell me what can I do to prove that? What is the procedure? What was the exact basis for accusing me? Is it really only that what's under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SalvNaut? SalvNaut 12:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what (if any) the procedure would be. But yes, i think their whole case is under the link you gave. This incident (and others ive seen) has made me concerned for the whole sock puppets issue. As such i just recently added a section to the talk page for suspected sock puppets labeled "false positives". You might want to put your opinion there to help others who might have this problem int he future. Debeo Morium (to be morally bound) 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. eh.. I hope my old edits to Steven Jones article and a lot of discussion I had there should clear this out to anyone who would be interested. I confess that I engaged in a few revert incidents in the past instead of discussing the issue extensively but I have better things to do than creating sockpuppets. I don't know what are consequences of being labeled a "sockpuppetter", but since the process of determining that is how it is, I hope they are minor (except few feathers around maybe). SalvNaut 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, if you need my support in your fight to prove your innocence you certainly have it. The only consequence, i would imagine, is the ban, and people being more suspicious of you (as every ban will inevitably do). Its best to get the ban cleared if you can to clear your good name. But if you cant, i would imagine the damage will be minimal. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk |Contribs) 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input.

It seems the old debate is still being attacked by Arthur Rubins. We could really use your input/discussion here:[[1]] - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

I have requested a review of your editing at WP:AE. See this section. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy you assume I am breaching? What are your arguments exactly? I provided a reliable secondary source reporting on this article. Can you argue that the only third party peer-reviewed article by CDH proponents is unimportant to the CDH case? salVNaut (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

Hi Salv, yes, things are changing. The 14 points paper obviously needs to go in the CDH article, and as far as I have been able to tell from the journal's homepage, it has been as peer-reviewed as anything else in that journal. But it's a young very journal, so it's impact on an engineering discussion will be minimal. I don't think it belongs in the lead, and I don't think it changes the "dismissed/regarded as a conspiracy theory" point. After the ArbCom decision, there is very little room for boldness on 9/11 related articles. (The natural progression of an edit like yours would have been to through a discussion that would probably end up putting it in the "engineering reactions section" after a lot of back and forth. That's where you should have started.) The current interpretation of the ArbCom ruling seems to mean that any attempt to "insert" material supportive of fringe views (even in articles about fringe views) is likely to result in a topic ban. On the other side, it is not considered a breach of decorum to immediately refer to such edits as "propaganda". So there's really no room (it seems to me) to edit the articles and discuss edits.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas. I could agree on "small impact". However, it really seems to be the first peer-reviewed-so-that-no-one-can-argue paper. I haven't suggested it changes the reception in e.c. much. My main motivation in putting this in the lead was to show the approach of the proponents (and that's how I formulated my edit). They're really workin hard to make their case stand to real science, they're seeking opinions of professionals, etc. Their previous attempts, likeRequest for correction to NIST, were really good job, too.

You're of course nailing core issue with regard to the situation here, how could you not. Wikipedia is about words, and much more words is on "their" side, if you know what I mean. Today, I've been called "a lobbyist" by Jehochman. In today's world, there is nothing wrong with lobbying along the rules. Then, lobbying "fringe theories" has apparently no chance of standing here as acceptable... salVNaut (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about that, and it's a good strategy to stay honest about it. You are lobbying for a particular POV, but you are aware of the rules and you try to work within them. In my opinion WP benefits from the presence of such "interested parties". That's what makes the principle that "anyone can edit" so remarkable. In practice, however, lobbyists are not welcomed. There's a story by Jorge Luis Borges called "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote" about a man who sets out to write a book that has already been written. The attitude of some editors seems to be something like that. They want to write the Enc. Britannica themselves--a perfect copy, but generated by a procedure that frees it from copyright. The idea that the wiki platform has given them an opportunity to accomplish something much more interesting has not occured to them. I really do think I'm through here. But since WP is likely to remain influential, I'm happy I had this opportunity to experience it from the inside. It puts things in perspective.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]