Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Naraht (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 21 May 2010 (→Kappa Sigma). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, 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!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

The shared IP I'm contacting you from has been responsible for vandalism after vandalism over the years. I was talking with the most recent person to post a warning about a potential block earlier, and he said I should talk to an admin about it. In particular, I'm wondering if IPs can be permabanned; but anything that stops the people using this IP from vandalizing works. --204.96.143.178 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Re, are you sure "evasion" is the right word? To me it implies sockpuppetry, or at least sneakiness. I don't want to see the guy pegged for something he didn't do. How about simply "violating" his ban? Signed, Mr. Language Person aka Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not thinking that, but on reflection I think you may be right - thank you. I am pretty sure that there is a way to work in a pun on evasion, but like a Blink dog in an SEP field, it eludes me at the moment. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, picking just the right term can be as tough as chewing a vegetarian's hat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

US dates

So 2010-11-07 is 11 July or 7 November? Probably best to spell out. --BozMo talk 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I use the One True Date Format where alphabetical and chronological order are the same. I specified the duration, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Issues

Whenever I try to edit under my Misplaced Pages account (in this case, Shatterheart), I get a message about opening a PHP file; this also happens whenever I try to edit something in the general Wikianswers hub (under my main Wikia account, Protostealth). Can you help me with this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.72.119 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot know for sure, but my guess is that you need to check the security settings for your browser (they should be under Settings → Preferences or Tools → Options or something like that). Misplaced Pages pages are dynamically rendered (see Misplaced Pages#Software and hardware) so that when you are logged in it can serve the correct appearance for your preferences. Do you also receive this message with other webpages built on the PHP framework or otherwise dynamically rendered? Purely for the sake of rational paranoia, you should also check for malware; you should not take the word of a random stranger on the internet, but download.cnet.com/ should have something that fits your system. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Medieval warming period edit war

Just wondering, why was FellGleaming the only one blocked for edit warring at that article? I see several other editors involved in that edit war. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Haabet#Blocked. Please also look at the image description page and the article talkpage. Oh, and now a Scibaby - do you see any more of those popping up in the last few hours? That one was registered not quite two hours ago, and there might be more just getting into their swing. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone explain to FellGleaming that the graph might be a nonsense graphic made by Scibaby? I can't imagine that he woud have readded the graph if someone would have explained that to him. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I have been happy to work with you in a number of AfD discussions over the years. You have shown an admirable ability to seek out and understand sources and a dedication to ensuring that our coverage is the best possible. Please do me the courtesy of reading the relevant history here; the above comment strongly suggests that you may have confused some of the participants. If you would like to suggest that there may have been better ways to serve the encyclopedia in this particular instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was about six months or so ago that I unknowingly restored a Scibaby edit to an article (I don't remember which article). Several editors here and on Misplaced Pages Review explained to me why it was obvioiusly a Scibaby edit and how to tell in the future and I wasn't blocked for it. So, having myself been tricked once, I'm wondering if the same level of education was provided to FellGleaming. Cla68 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish FellGleeming all the best but I have to say he is lucky to still be editing. If it hadn't been for an out of process enforcement request against him (that I opposed on principle even though I was involved in a major disagreement with him) he may have been facing a long ban. Defense of him as a new editor is not really necessary. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla, all you have to do is read the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla, don't bother appealing to 2/0, he's been handing out one-sided sanctions for months and shows no signs of stopping, even as he's critical of Lar, who has sanctioned no one. ATren (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. ATren. You have no idea how much I would back you up if you stopped being so partisan. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I have {{welcome}}d Scibaby to Misplaced Pages four times that I can recall offhand, most recently about three weeks ago. Scibaby is completely irrelevant to this particular situation other than jumping in to stir up a little ill will and edit warring. This is not merely a case of WP:DENY, the clearly tagged sockpuppet did not even edit that article until just after I had blocked the other two editors. I think it would be a great idea to share your accumulated wisdom with FellGleaming, both regarding Scibaby (keeping in mind WP:BEANS, of course) and regarding keeping cool when the editing gets hot. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

2/0, I see one revert on that page from FellGleaming. I see NO recent discussion on article talk before FG's edit. I see no warnings from you to FG, on the talk page or his user talk. So one revert in the absence of any warning or other action, and he gets blocked? Please explain, as I'm sure I must have missed something here. ATren (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In what fantasy world is it not It is edit warring to revert, without discussion, an inarguably poor edit that was previously undone twice and was contested on the talk page without actually editing the talk page and engaging in the discussion?. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion on talk when FG made his single revert. Please let 2/0 answer. ATren (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren and Hipocrite, both of you please cleave to a higher standard of civility here. In general also would be nice, but especially here.

ATren, please look at the edit history of that article and check the talkpage again. Please also consider that I may be aware of recent onsite discussions concerning FellGleaming and may have taken those into account in deciding whether to block or warn. This clearly fits the definition of WP:EW even at first glance, and even more clearly falls under WP:GSCC, which I cited in my blocking statement. I would also like to point you to the image in question (it looks like Commons does not delete things for seven days), which cites no source. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and edit warring over a questionably sourced image is simply not acceptable. If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my incivil entry and have struk it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion on talk when FG made his single revert - this is false William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I misread the history. I've struck that point. I still believe a single revert with explanation in the edit comment is not grounds for a block, especially when there were no prior warnings. ATren (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FG was blind-reverting in rubbish, presumably for POV reasons - there are no others. Had he apologised, then things mught be different. Why don't you take a look at the graph itself, see if you can see any problems with it - elementary precautions, which FG failed to follow, but you could William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked, and I assume honestly, "If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning." I'd like to provide such. You have not tried topic banning the following editors from global warming for any period, all at the same time - WMC, Kim, Polargeo, Myself, Ratel, Guettarda, Atren, Cla68, FelGleaming, Heyitspeter, Nsaa, Marknutley and Zulu Papa 5. There is no reason not to try giving this large swath of editors (and any whom I forgot/missed/whatever) a one week break from the topic area and see what happenes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that, Hipocrite, I appreciate it.

Thank you also for your suggestion. For the sake of thought experiment, they might also be added Stephan Schulz, Yopienso, ChrisO, and a few others depending on precisely how you would define the vacation criteria (number of edits in the topic area? limited to the last month? excluding reverts of obvious vandalism and sockpuppets, presumably. weighted by percent of edits/effort to other areas of the encyclopedia?) A literal reading of the WP:GSCC page would support your suggested course of action, but I have my doubts that the community would support it were I to take such an action unilaterally. Mediation leading to a MAD détente would be an option, but pragmatically I do not see it working. This would also have the regrettable consequence of, from a game theoretic standpoint ignoring the personalities involved, encouraging sockpuppetry even more than Misplaced Pages's current model does.

Crohnie has suggested sweeping full protection with active monitoring on {{editprotected}}. This runs afoul of the anyone can edit founding principle, but I fear that may be the direction we are headed, by encroachment if not by design. One of the problems in this topic area that argues for your solution is the tendency of editors to move to a new battleground instead of seeking consensus on a protected article. Off2riorob (I believe) suggested that we record the participants whenever an article is protected due to edit warring, with an eye to identifying and sanctioning the people who repeatedly revert instead of debating, especially once it should be clear to any reasonable editor that their change will be immediately reverted. So long as it is not applied naïvely, I think I may be leaning in that direction now. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who Yopienso is, so I wouldn't include him in a broad topic ban trial. The other two were obvious oversights. My criteria was "editors whose time is being wasted by other editors on the list, and as such should have no concerns with a broad topic banning." IE - since there's obviously no forward progress made on any of the articles, everyone should realize banning everyone is the status-quo. I oppose Crohnie's sweeping full protection, as anyone can edit. I support Off2riorob's suggestion that anyone who reverts something that will obviously just get re-reverted should be blocked, while editors who report such reverts but refrain from themselves reverting should be "rewarded" by having their preferred version enmeshed in stone while the block exists. This would likley cut edit warring to zero, though it would involve multiple "revert and block" or "revert and protects." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I see my name in here and wonder why. Is someone suggesting I be banned? If so, why? If not, what is being suggested? Yopienso (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Yopienso, do not worry - I just included your name in the list of people who make a bunch of edits to articles covered by the climate change probation. Hipocrite (among others) is tired of the incessant squabbling that takes place around those articles, and we were kicking around a thought experiment of forcing an editorial reboot so new people can start fresh discussions. From the little I have seen, you seem a fine editor, and there is anyway zero chance of a discussion here reaching community consensus. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of FellGleaming

Hello 2over0. FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Review

Please look at the article on Diamond Cutters International & Fred Cuellar. I do not feel that it should be included, unless there is a complete section on the fraud this company committed and the conviction that Mr. Cuellar recieved. This company & individual has no importance other than a felony criminal record http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/06/08/story3.html and extensive civil action taken against Mr. Cuellar & Canary Investments DBA Diamond Cutters International. Please review http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=6476 The full civil & criminal history are available online from Harris County District Clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Dunster (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Re : thanks. It is nice to know there is someone competent in this probation area William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just reading through the page dotting the i's a crossing the h's. I wish I had an opinion on the LHvU thread, but Idonwanna read the AN/I thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual talkback

Inside your collapsed section here. Don't hesitate to delete this once you've seen it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There had been no comments to that thread lately, and there seemed a rough consensus that there is no need to pursue sanctions at this point. Check ChrisO's talkpage for my request for care and caution accompanying my notice that the thread had been closed. There were issues raised in the enforcement thread that were not cited in the earlier blocking rationale, but at least for my part I thought that they were closely enough related that an additional block would be more punitive than preventative, and not sufficiently pervasive to warrant investigating a wider sanction. I think there is a good chance that we would have agreed that some sanction was warranted had ChrisO not just been blocked for an essentially related issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I removed the word "further" from your collapse summary?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine - I think the discussion stands on its own if anyone needs to refer back to it. Mentioning this discussion in your edit summary should avoid any potential drama. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (British Petroleum) Misplaced Pages Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it

Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Misplaced Pages guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.179.110 (talk)

Request for comment/Climate change probation

I have started working on a Request for comment requesting community review of the Climate change general sanctions; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. I would appreciate help framing and evidencing the question of whether the extraordinary sanctions are currently necessary. Feel free to edit this page and discuss it at the talkpage, though no formal endorsements should be made until the page is "live". If you would like to be notified when the discussion is moved to projectspace, please leave a note on the talkpage there. Until I abandon this project or the discussion concludes, I will undertake no probation-related admin activities. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus close?

Lar would rather you didn't see this so I'd better point it out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How would WMC know what I'd rather, or didn't rather? Personally I'd rather you DID see it. Although it's not where WMC put it any more. Since he seemed rather insistent, he got blocked. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The passive voice is to be avoided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that you chose to focus on that particular aspect of my missive. I'll endeavour to do better in that regard going forward. Now if only WMC would take your advice as readily. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar - I just unblocked WMC, as I think there is a good faith argument that you are too WP:INVOLVED here. Please allow a few minutes while I request review at WP:AN/I. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See you over there. I'll be making the case that a) it was not a "cool down block" as there was no particular incivility involved, it was a block for edit warring and being disruptive on the enforcement page, and b) I'm not involved. That WMC bears me animus (way easily shown) is irrelevant and not a disqualification to acting, since I bear him none. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well seems like following the section rules (process) might preempt faith assumptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you unblock without contacting blocking admin?

2/0, admins should contact the blocking admin before unblocking, should they not? There's no evidence you did so. Please reverse your action. ATren (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were referring to 2/0's unblock of WMC, it's cool, I was already on his talk page anyway and I'm not going to stand on formal notice being required in exactly the right place. If something else, then carry on. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already requested a review at AN/I. He should have contacted you first, particularly for such a short block which would have expired soon anyways. ATren (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I continue to respect your attempts to play a moderating role, and none of my comments mean to disparage your participation. I just think you are as involved as Lar. A bit more lawyerly, but probably as opinionated on the problematic editors if not more so.

There is the question: should admins exert social pressure in order to do their jobs, or only issue sanctions? By my reading Lar is trying to use a broader palate, all for the same purpose of encouraging a better editing environment. I suppose it comes back to bite him when editors then claim he is showing "bias," except to the extent I must say I've seen those claims to be self-evidently transparent, given that views about who is being disruptive and how are exactly what admins are empowered to decide. So should admins instead simply play the robot as if they take no stake in what is happening? If so, I think it would only be another sign of a highly factionalized environment. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Eastman, Georgia

Whatever you were attempting to do to Eastman, Georgia, you also removed 3 links that were valid and not part of any "copyright violation". I restored the links, please be more careful in the future. Mjrmtg (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting all of my work

I'm disappointed, upset, angry, and probably some other things for all of my work being deleted, Dodge County High School, Georgia 4-H, Eastman, Georgia, and some other minor pages. Work that I've been gathering the past week for hours upon no end. Not all of the work that I uploaded to the pages I fixed or added stuff was copyrighted material. I know now that I need to reword stuff for the future though. For one thing about the Dodge County High School page. The article that was written there, I wrote, when I was in high school. I have no idea how to properly site it since it was from a website. But there it goes, gets deleted. Along with random pages that I fixed a few sentences or paragraphs and fixed source links. I give up. I'm afraid to add anything else because of fear of deletion because of the now bad reputation that my name has because of this incident. I don't know what to do. I have read all the new beginners editing things on Misplaced Pages, so I know what to do. I'm just scared to do it for fear of being blocked, when I shouldn't feel like that at all. I'm not even sure if I want to go back through all of that trouble retyping everything back out and finding all the sources again. Tamer of hope (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are genuinely interested in helping write a quality encyclopedia, but copying material from copyrighted sources detracts from that goal. If you stick to summarizing multiple sources without copying or close paraphrasing, I really would not worry about it - many people make a few mistakes in their first few days here before going on to become some of our best contributors. Your contributions may still be viewed by clicking My contributions at the top of the page. It should be relatively simple to filter out the copyrighted material from the positive contributions.

If you retain the copyright to the article you added to Dodge County High School, you can release the material under a CC-BY-SA license; see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. More likely, the school holds the copyright, but they might be willing to release it under a compatible license. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible to put something on here in your own words, then show where you got the source from then have it all deleted because one thing might have been wrong? To me it seems much easier to write something and not put the sources on there, because those pages get away with not being caught by bots. I'm not even sure how to begin to getting a license of copyright from my school for that article. Tamer of hope (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgia 4-H

Why exactly did you revert all of this work? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 There is no copyright violation in adding a template and filling in the blanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me how I can report you for unnecessary full revertions? Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Major portions of both of those edits were copied directly from sources making a credible assertion of copyright. Please read the relevant policy at Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations. If you would like to restore the portions that you verify do not violate copyright, please feel free to do so; it is also likely that those are reliable sources suitable for being cited as references in those articles.

Archive notice: Mjrmtg performed a little cleanup on another editor's WP:COPYVIO addition, but to my knowledge has not added any such material. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations page and nowhere does it say that an edit needs to be reverted like you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 when the whole edit was not a WP:COPYVIO addition. Why did you revert the whole thing when a template was added? The same thing with this reverted edit you made on the Eastman, Georgia page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eastman,_Georgia&diff=prev&oldid=362965826 You reverted links that were added, those links were not a WP:COPYVIO. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I draw your attention to . I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That close does not reflect my opinion, though I assume that it was taken into account; based on the evidence submitted, personal perusal of the relevant recent history, and the extremely minimal amount of prior dispute resolution attempted, that is not a result I would suggest. I read that discussion as lacking in consensus, especially given the uncharacteristic lack of evidenced care in some of the opinions rendered. The remit of these sanctions has also been discussed before as only extending to restrictions lasting one year or less. The lack of consensus is not so marginal, though, that I would overturn that close unilaterally, and I would feel obligated to enforce it as written unless formally withdrawn.

As a side note, the structure of the CC probation explicitly does not require consensus before action, though once more than one uninvolved person has opined I would consider it highly impolite to act absent one.

Per a few sections up on this page, I am avoiding the climate change probation for a few weeks to avoid any appearance of impropriety while I prepare and file an RfC. Several people opined back in January that the community should review progress in the area after a few months, so it would seem about that time. If you would like to appeal this sanction, please carefully, clearly, and neutrally present your case at AN/I with an eye to attracting comment from uninvolved users. Given the volume of verbiage the CC-RfE board regulars are capable of generating, it might also be a good idea to establish separate involved and uninvolved sections or something along those lines. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Fair enough. The fact remains, there are serious policy problems with this article and Hammy seems to think he owns the page, and ignores any attempts to discuss the problems. It is frustrating. But i appreciate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma

You realize, of course, that this makes you part of the conspiracy. 1/2 :) Naraht (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it makes a nice break from suppressing The Truth that high temperature superconductors are just a conspiracy perpetrated by the materials science community so we can get some of those sweet, sweet NIH dollars. I was going to say that my undergrad did not even have a chapter, but apparently they do. hnh. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the conspiracy was that room temperature high temperature superconductors were being surpressed by the government. Oh, well. Wow, managing to get through college without knowing what social fraternities were on campus. That's impressive. Naraht (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)