Misplaced Pages

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – May 2008 May 2008 – July 2009 August 2009 –

Tristan Tzara

Hi, you appear to have put a block of the Tristan Tzara page regarding Tzara's demand to piss in different colors. Can you explain why you have taken the side that you have; a side which suppresses the pissing in different colors demand? I am dismayed regarding the inability of editors to communicate on this issue. There seems to be a refusal to recognize blatant verifiable facts. Despite my attempts to resolve the issue on the Tzara discussion page, there is no willingness of editors to address the issue in a fair-minded way. The false accusations of vandalism are very dishonest and manipulative. The pissing issue is not original research. Is there a voice of reason anywhere on Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.154.138 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't "taken the side" of anyone on that page. At best, I protected the page on the WP:WRONGVERSION. Simply put, there's been a long-term edit war over the inclusion of the material you allude to. This is disruptive. If you cannot gain consensus for inclusiuon on the talk page, you need to drop the issue. I'll happily undue the protection if everything gets hashed out in the appropriate forum, namely Talk:Tristan Tzara. — Scientizzle 23:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with the description of "edit war" but as you can see from the Tzara history page there are frequent accusations of Vandalism and Original Research. Does the content of a Misplaced Pages article reflect logic or merely mob rule? I am in minority therefore my input appears doomed because I do not have mob rule on my side. I have attempted to discuss this issue on the Tzara discussion page but there was no reply to my recent comments left on March 12th 2010. Instead of a reply user Dahn simply persisted in reverting my edits and falsely accusing me of vandalism. This issue seems to be mainly with Dahn. I suspect Dahn has friends in high places within the Misplaced Pages hierarchy, and those friends simply take his side without looking at the facts of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.234.17 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Content is required to meet policies on verifiability, neutrality, and original research; said content is the product of consensus, which incorporates policy, guidelines, and editorial discretion. I left a comment on the talk page asking for the issue to be addressed. Make your best, most neutrally-worded case. You should also be willing and prepared to discontinue your push to include the content you want if you cannot garner consensus for its inclusion. Thanks, — Scientizzle 00:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, that it might be helpful if you'd register an account. It would make communication with you easier, since your IP address changes so frequently. It's not required, but it's free and painless... — Scientizzle 00:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I say... I think my lone voice of logic is doomed. Thankfully my voice is only doomed within Misplaced Pages. When I first contributed to the Tzara article I was simply being helpful adding important information that strangely was absent; the issue has now become something of a cause for me and I will fight on for justice. Consensual validation has no bearing upon logic. If two million people think it is good to drink poison or to believe in pixies, this doesn't make such actions or beliefs worthy, right, or wise. One day I will beat them at their own game. It may take a good few years but eventually I will ensure, via publicizing the pissing issue in mainstream media channels, that the world knows the truth about Tzara's demand to piss in different colors and then one day I will have mob rule on my side. Thanks for taking to the time to reply. Your feedback has been helpful. PS. I don't see any need to register for a Misplaced Pages account because it is very easy to edit and communicate without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.234.17 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of your comments here and at Talk:Tristan Tzara don't sit comfortably with me...I see some statements that indicate a lack of good-faith interpretations of other editors' motivations and methods, and it appears that you view this as some sort of competitive enterprise. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, nor is it the place to right great wrongs. If this bit of triviality is some sort of crusade for you, I suggest you need to realign your priorities. Please do not disrupt the encyclopedia to make some sort of point. I'm happy to offer help towards ending this dispute, but don't waste my time if you're just going to perseverate over this issue in a disruptive manner should things not go your way. — Scientizzle 01:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of your actions don't sit comfortably with me because your actions seem to indicate a lack of good faith. I resent your allegations which cast aspersions upon my character. Why did you protect the wrong version? Surely protecting the right version would make more sense? Yes I agree completely that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground but you and Misplaced Pages do recognize that it can become a battleground thus you have phrases such as "edit-war". I assure you I am not the aggressor but when people fail to act in a fair-minded, logical, or reasonable manner I will vehemently fight for justice via the appropriate channels. I am not disrupting Wikpedia to make a point. It is actually user Dahn who is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make some sort of point; and rather than protecting his edits it would make more sense if you protected my edits. I am saddened regarding people in authority within Misplaced Pages misconstruing my statements. This is not about using Misplaced Pages to right great wrongs; I am simply trying to present a unbiased version of Tzara's life based upon verifiability referenced from reputable sources, but to present a reliable article this issue has become a battle for justice and logic. Do you think I enjoy this petty nonsense regarding a certain editor who seems to see the entire Tzara article as his own personal authorship? Perhaps the Tzara article should credit Dahn for his input because it is basically his article... check the history and you will see he has made a massive amount of edits. I assure you if things don't go my way I will not persist with Misplaced Pages: I will bypass Misplaced Pages in my search for justice. It seems Misplaced Pages editors often like to think they are the ultimate authority on journalism and media but there is a world of journalism and media outside of the cliquey Misplaced Pages brotherhood. Thankfully Misplaced Pages editors do not have censorship powers outside of Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.37.8 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My actions "indicate a lack of good faith"? All I've done is protect a page (that you admit was undegoing an "edit war") and offer advice on civil dispute resolution. I'm not certain you actually read the content at WP:WRONGVERSION as I don't detect sufficient irony in your accusation against me... — Scientizzle 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of not reading things: You've obviously NOT read my contribution to the Tristan Tzara page because if you had you would not suggest I was attempting to right great wrongs. Really, your suggestion is ridiculous when you look at the facts.

Regarding the Tristan Tzara WP:WRONGVERSION which you protected, your internal link redirected to "The_wrong_version" and at the top of that page is says: "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." I therefore didn't take it too seriously and didn't read every detail, which was apparently a mistake? When a page says you shouldn't take something too seriously you should obviously take it seriously (perhaps) because the order to not take it too seriously shouldn't be taken too seriously therefore it is serious. Perhaps all Misplaced Pages pages are not serious? Misplaced Pages seems to has a Kafkaesque love of absurd bureaucracy evidenced by almost endless pages of rules, regulations, and insider-jokes (In-joke). It seemed the essence of the WP:WRONGVERSION page you referenced is that it is impossible to challenge a decision which protects the wrong version because any challenger will be assailed by a mountain of bureaucratic redirection intended to thwart any challenges, reminiscent of The Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand why I referred to that page to begin with or are you being obtuse? No matter the version of the disputed article I protected, someone will have a complaint about it. It's a no-win situation for the admin, because s/he will surely have to deal with these complaints, but it's a sacrifice taken because edit warring is more broadly unconstructive/destructive.

And you can't have it both ways: you claim the be the "lone voice of logic" and that inclusion of this tidbit is "something of a cause for " and is a battle for "justice"...but your editwarring isn't tendentious? Please. — Scientizzle 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit should be upheld if editors fail to engage in discussion

After the temporary protection for the Tzara page expires: my edit should be upheld if editors fail to engage in discussion. I have actually been waiting for a reply on the discussion page since around March 12th therefore I feel it is more than generous to give editors a couple more days to reply. When I say "editors" I really mean user 'Dahn' because this is basically an issue of my edits verses his edits, but he has occasionally gone running to other people for support. In the interests of a level playing field I would appreciate it if you didn't go a tell Dahn to respond to the Tzara discussion otherwise his edits will be superseded by mine regarding the pissing issue when the protection expires. If people are unable to engage in discussion then surely by default my arguments are correct and my points are validated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear you are assuming the pissing issue is an attempt to right great wrongs but when you look at the facts and references you can see the pissing issue is well-documented in art history and theory by reputable theoreticians and historians. Please don't assume I am wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.195.34 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Open the damn RFC and quit trying to lawyer in your preferred content.

I've waded through a good portion of your talk page comments and the the suggested content. It's a fantastically insipid battle. Have you even convinced one other editor that your content is a valuable inclusion? Have you tried? Honestly--not just talked at people about how you're right and they're wrong? If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously. Edits like this suggest that this is some tedious, verbose trolling exercise. Is it?

If edit warring resumes following the expiration of the protection, I'll immediately re-apply it. Now, please don't fill my talk page with any more self-righteous dribble. Address the issue through the suggested means and gather support for a proposed inclusion. You're pissing (word choice intended) away my good will and willingness to assist you through your badgering on this page. — Scientizzle 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I really do get weary of your insults. You have accused me of not acting in good faith; you have accused me of trying to right great wrongs; you have also implied my edits lack verifiability and neutrality and that I am trying to promote original research and that I am trying to make some sort of point. When you ask if I have even convinced one editor; I wish to reiterate that there is really only one editor, Dahn; It is basically his article and he has a few cronies supporting his nonsense. Please forgive this edit which was online for a few seconds before I removed it, but surely you can appreciate how your pigheadedness combined with offensive insults could lead someone to alter your page disrespectfully?... come on really, merely because I justifiably lost my temper for a few seconds that doesn't mean my entire argument is a "verbose trolling exercise". When you suggest I am trolling you are obviously, to my mind, being intentionally obtuse. The question is this: did Tzara demand the right to piss in different colors; and is such a demand well documented by respected academics, published by noteworthy publishing houses? The answer is yes on all counts. I think the reason people are difficult to convince regarding this matter is because when I highlight the verifiability of the pissing issue, via highlighting credible and reputable references, such references are ignored and I am accused of vandalism, promoting original research, etc etc etc. So until I can find the time to cut off the heads of the Hydra via opening a Kafkaesque RFC I suggest you permanently protect the wrong version because it is easier for me to reinsert the pissing issue instead of banging my head against the bureaucratic Misplaced Pages wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.128.249 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of not acting in good faith; you have accused me of trying to right great wrongs; you have also implied my edits lack verifiability and neutrality and that I am trying to promote original research and that I am trying to make some sort of point.

Highly inaccurate. I have pointed out that you have made some accusations against others that seem to violate WP:AGF (do you really need examples of these?). I have pointed out that, by your own words, you have viewed this issue as something to battle over and I cautioned you that this is not appropriate. I have never implied that your edits lack verifiability and neutrality, only that you have not gained any sort of support for your inclusion. Tell me how these actions are inappropriate. Seriously, please go through my comments on this page and re-evaluate your responses to them...do you really think "cast aspersions upon character" is an accurate description? Where are the "offensive insults"?

I asked whether you were trolling as an honest question. If you should be pardoned because you "justifiably lost temper", should I not have been granted a modicum of respect on my own talk page for all the offered advice on how to proceed in your dispute? I gave you level-headed suggestions on dispute resolution, followed by justifiable cautions that some of your actions were potentially counter-productive and probably contributing to your lack of success at content inclusion. In turn, I was told that my "actions seem to indicate a lack of good faith", that I was "protecting" someone else's edits, that I "obviously" was not reading your arguments, and that my behavior was pigheaded.

I am quite serious. Do me the minimal favor of reexamining this discussion and WP:AGF.

All that said, opening a request for comment is quite simple. Given the amount of time you've taken on my talk page, it could have been completed long ago. Since you're confident that your addition is well-documented and noteworthy, why delay? I am still willing to help, should you need it, even though I am frustrated at how much I'm spinning my wheels here. It's certainly not appropriate for you to threaten to edit war further. If you're not willing to be collegial and cooperative, I can't and won't help you. — Scientizzle 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly I am perplexed regarding things you have wrote. How can I assume good faith of other editors when my utterly verifiable contributions from reputable sources are labeled acts of vandalism and original research? Do you really need examples of these? You ask where the offensive insults are... well for one your snide insinuation that I am trolling is offensive. You also described my comments on the Tzara discussion page as being "insipid" and you suggest my input is tendentious. I find it offensive that you generally see me as the aggressor, which leads you to remind me of how: "Content is required to meet policies on verifiability, neutrality, and original research..." by which you are implying my edits do not comply, which is insulting. Furthermore you say my accusations seem to violate WP:AGF but for the record you can see it was user Dahn who started calling my edits "nonsense" and "vandalism"; such offensive words seem to reject WP:AGF therefore I feel it is impossible to assume good faith of other editors when they have been the instigators of offensive comments. How can I assume good faith when an editor describes my edits as nonsense and vandalism despite my edits being utterly corroborated via numerous reputable sources of impeccable authenticity and renown?

My cheeky edit of you page which lasted a couple of seconds, and during those few seconds I am sure it was seen my nobody other than me, it was hardly a transgression; although due to the transitory nature of it you could possibly call it a thoughtcrime if you insist upon it being a transgression. It was only via looking back through a transient history that you became aware of my fleeting disrespect. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you looked deeper into my thoughts you would probably see deeper disrespect but on the surface I am being civil. So it is NOT really an "honest question" when you ask if I am trolling. You were searching for disrespect merely as tool to use against me. I was foolish to give you such scanty bait because I should have realized you would disproportionally jump upon the most microscopic pretext for criticizing me. Regarding the edit-war I am not the transgressor I am merely fighting a defending action therefore I suggest if the edit war continues you should level your condemnation against the aggressors. My reluctance to open the RFC is that I fear bias and favoritism exists within the Misplaced Pages Hierarchy therefore I imagine user Dahn will be successful regardless of evidence. The situation resembles a member of the public making a complaint against the police and the complaint is investigated by the police; the outcome will be biased because the police protect their own.

On a more constructive note I suspect Dahn maybe guilty of sockpuppetry. At the very least I would like to challenge the accusation of vandalism against me, which was made at "17:03, 2 April 2010 by Cptmurdok". Who is Cptmurdok and what led him to define my edit as vandalism? Is there any connection between Dahn and Cptmurdok? Can private correspondence between editors be examined as part of the RFC? I would like to know what strings are being pulled behind the scenes? Here is a good example of Dahn's unjustified tone when he corrects my edits: "02:08, 16 February 2010 Dahn (talk | contribs) (123,715 bytes) (rv - completely random, woefully overfocused (WP:UNDUE), not commented in any of the sources dealing with Tzara's life; borderline vandalism)."

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply and please forgive me if I've been tense or slightly confrontational when responding but some of the things Dahn has done really annoyed me; and then when you decided to protect his version I rightly or wrongly saw you as being in cahoots with Dahn... I saw you as another antagonist engaging in the edit-war. There is not much more to say but I will open a RFC at some point in the future although not just yet because I feel very worn out.

OH, there's one final thing to wanted to mention... some of things you say are contradictory, for example you say I should assume good faith but then you also say on your page assume makes an ass out you and me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.127.61 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're done here. I've offered the olive branch and you're clearly not interested. Please leave me alone now. — Scientizzle 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree we are done. My future edits on the Tzara page will leave out the references to nihilism thus "the pissing in different colors demand" (at the first Dada Soirée July 14, 1916, Zurich) may seem more palatable to some editors. Anyway, thanks for your feedback; you have been helpful. Sorry if you felt stressed by our discussion. Regards 86.128.127.61 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn

Update

In his Zurich Chronicle 1915-1919 (published in 1920) Tzara recollected how during the first Dada night at Waag Hall (on 14 July 1916) he demanded the right to piss in different colors: "...we demand the right to piss in different colors..." Tzara wrote regarding the first Dada night at Waag Hall.

It's good that you've made a concrete suggestion on the talk page. It's not clear, however, why anyone should care about this factoid bit of trivia. That someone who did so many things that could be described as surrealist or avant-garde would have made such a demand is not surpising...is it relevant? I think that is the case you've been unseccessful with thus far. It seems like it's been noted in proper sources, but why? What's the relevance beyond, say, an abusurdist titillation that's mundane by today's media standards? — Scientizzle 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I assure you it is not a factoid. Don't be so quick to judge. The relevance is chronological, historic, and insightful. Via mentioning the first Dada night, and the location Zurich, and by giving a flavor of what Tzara said, written in his own chronicle, I feel this is an concise description of a key stage in his life, worthy of inclusion. 86.128.0.104 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn

(edit conflict)Why did he make this demand? The point of him making that satement was ___? Tie it together with the larger article & explicitly state the relevance. It's almost there... — Scientizzle 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevance could perhaps hinge upon the importance to which Tzara gave the demand. According to his chronicle, regarding the first Dada night (14 July 1916); the pissing in different colors demand was the first thing Tzara uttered therefore it seems he gave the demand some importance. Something said at the beginning of first night should surely be worthy inclusion even if it is titillating. Merely because something is titillating this shouldn't be cause to shy away from including such information. Perhaps pissing in different colors seems mundane by today's standards but today's standards are irrelevant; the demand shouldn't be included merely because it was once shocking. It should be included for the wealth of historical information it gives regarding Tzara and the mood of the times. 86.128.0.104 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)XVarn

I don't care if it's titillating or not (by any era's standards), but it should have obvious relevance to the article. It being the first thing he said doesn't make that relevance clear. For it to be included, most reasonable editors will want to know how it relates to the bigger picture: Tzara is considered an important figure, therefore in the interest of the most informative article most details should illustrate clearly how some aspect of his history was part of his larger impact. — Scientizzle 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pissing in different colors is an archetypal Dadaist statement, thus purely as a conceptual artwork is it relevant. Many art historians and commentators considered Tzara's demand to be worthy of inclusion in their works, so perhaps I shall dig deeper and see what their justification was for including Tzara's demand. Tzara wrote in his Zurich chronicle: "For the first time anywhere. Guildhall 'zur Waag'. 1. Dada-night (music, dance, lectures, manifestos, poems, paintings, fancy dresses, masks). In the crowd of the audience Tzara demonstrates, we demand, we demand the right, to piss in various colours. Huelsenbeck demonstrates, Ball demonstrates, Arp 'Explanation', Janco 'My Paintings', Heusser 'Own Compositions'." (this translation differs form other translations slightly). This first Dada night seems to be an important event with many noteworthy artists in attendance thus the art performed is also important. 1916 was an key year regarding the evolution of Dada therefore the events around that time are likewise important. In the Tzara article] it says: "The shows Tzara staged in Zürich often turned into scandals or riots, and he was in permanent conflict with the Swiss law enforcers." Pissing in different colors could be a good example of provocativeness.

Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, I will do more research and get back to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.0.104 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I think we're getting somewhere useful. Including random claims in a biography can often make it disjointed and distract from the relevent details. However, if this particular statement has been, say, used by Tzara biographers as an example of the type of activities by Tzara that precipitated larger reactions from contemporaries, the public and/or antagonist authorities, then it evolves from an interesting tidbit to a relevant illustration of the man's actions and impact. I look forward to your further clarifications regarding this issue. — Scientizzle 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for blocking sockpuppets

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, BullRangifer, award you this barnstar for your diligence in sockpuppet investigations and blocking yet another sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey. Thanks for doing a thorough job of blocking his other remaining socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What an annoyance, eh? — Scientizzle 14:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, i need your advice, Administrator guidance to be more precise. I will try to represent the problem as detailed as possible so that I and others could get a valid advice from you about this matter. I don`t know if this enters the category of Edit war or Edit warning , so i`l just say it :). There are 2 articles that represent the problem, first and second. The problem is the same on both articles, User:Umumu(who wrote the data) and I want to make a referenced contribution to both articles but other users(User:Squash Racket) refuse for the article to contain that data, even if it is referenced by valid sources. If you can please look here and here you can see that there is a silent edit war. Here is the 1st contribution and the second. If you can give us your Administrator guidance regarding this matter so the silent edit war can stop. I would rather ask for advice and not to get myself or somebody else banned.Thank you in advance.iadrian (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He presented the situation (linking my name) in a misleading way. I don't want to repeat myself, so please take a look. And please ask User:Iadrian yu to not post this everywhere. Squash Racket (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t want to get into details about incivility some users represent so i`l just say that this represents wikihounding. iadrian (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You link somebody's name in an accusation presented in an absolutely misleading way on an administrator's talk page (moving from another admin's talk page WITHOUT waiting for his answer) and you try to delete his answer AND then you start citing rules?? Squash Racket (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that i can`t prove, but i realized that i had deleted your comment while not on my talk page (not my page i don`t have the right to delete/modify anything), and i wanted to revert it , but you already did. I don`t want to talk anymore , you like to create confusion and this time i will not participate. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly likes to create confusion? At least wait for the answer of Excirial as he already indicated he would answer and stop the forum shopping. Squash Racket (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

...ummm, woah. I took a look at Excirial's talk page and agree with Excirial's response. I don't have any knowledge of (or much interest in) these disputed areas. I'll simply refer you all to WP:DR. Please consider voluntary ways to defuse your own conflicts as well (e.g., voluntary 1RR restrictions). — Scientizzle 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:TheClerksWell#Edit request from TheClerksWell, 15 April 2010. –xeno 20:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track there...good work. — Scientizzle 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BanLec

On April 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BanLec, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

New friend on Talk:Homeopathy

I’ll bet you a drink that User:Skycop12 is another sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey. The timing of his arrival, and the familiarity of his style are just too suspicious. — TheHerbalGerbil, 01:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

REFRAIN FROM LIBEL, REFRAIN FROM CYBER-STALKING

Your gang said:

"Edit warring, promotion of fringe views

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on the article talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Scientizzle 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)"

All you are doing is making mere accusations and of the very things you do. I will not be drawn into an endless fight against your cyber-harassment. If you want me to press charges against for breaking federal law against Internet harassment and libel, keep it up.Oriclan (talk)