Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPL bot (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 17 April 2012 (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removal

I did in fact remove your addition before I posted the message to your talk page. No one is expected to be perfect on wikipedia, but people are expected to be able to learn what it and isn't accepted. It is perfectly normal to inform a user when you feel they made a mistake in their editing so that they are hopefully able to learn from it and avoid the same mistake in the future. It is not intended to cast ill-aspirations to the character or otherwise of the person but simply to help them learn about policy and best practice (whether written or not) so that we can all contribute to making wikipedia a better place, which includes less time spent having to undo well meaning edits which unfortunately make the article worse. Misplaced Pages is not a game or a social networking site where you gain points by being 'less sucky' or attacking other editors who make mistakes but rather about creating a referenced, high quality encylopaedia and part of that process is helping contributors understand how they can make wikipedia a better place and pitfalls to avoid. Ultimately you should not take messages too personally, they should not be intended that way (see WP:NPA) and usually they are not, they are instead intended to promote discussion, thought and learning about making wikipedia a better place. As per our NPA policy, if users do attack you personally and it bothers you, I suggest you ask for help from other users as that behaviour is strongly frowned upon and does not help make wikipedia a better place. Incidentally unless you comment on my talk page, this will be my last message to you, but I felt it only fair to respond since you appear to have misunderstood completely the purpose of wikipedia user talk messages which is a serious problem as talk page messages are an important part of helping wikipedians collorate, learn when they went wrong, and learn how to make wikipedia a better place rather then a place for attacking others or scoring points. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 66.192.63.2 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

Hi Scientus! Thanks for the WP:AIV report. At WP:AIV we normally only handle blocks of users where all three of these conditions are met: 1) The user or ip has received a series of escalating warnings informing them that their vandalism may result in a block; 2) They vandalized after a final (i.e. level four) warning, and 3) the vandalism was within an hour or so of the report to WP:AIV. It's not an exact science though. I will block for a single nasty defamatory edit against a living person, for example, as will many admins. In any event, the ip you reported has not even edited today, so the WP:AIV report was not acted on. Note that we generally only block ips for 1 or 2 days because ip addresses can roam around; different people at different times are assigned the same ip address. This also means when looking at old vandalism of an ip, it's not unlikely it's a completely different person now, so reporting an ip for old vandalism is not fruitful. Your heart was in the right place though:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not challenging your decision, however I would like to note that this is the same person, as he/she has made the same or similar edits to David Souter about 10 times in the last 6 months.

Re Linus' Law

Rather than edit warring on Linus's Law itself, I was wondering if you could explain why you felt the need to remove my tags? I feel that both of those tags are fair additions to an article that is currently good but not great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanowolf (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally I favor fixing articles rather than adding meta templates, especially when an article does have some citations that are good and conflicts are unlikely.Scientus (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As it is, I have no problems with your recent removal of the quotes in question. Perhaps someone will visit the Maslow's hierarchy of needs connection later. Nanowolf (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Referenceing

Hi Scientus, Thanks for taking the time to improve the free content article. It may be an idea to read up on how to use citations on wiki (WP:CITE), you need to find a source, not just a quote or title from different articles on wiki! As an aside, some countries have a different concept of what is eligible for copyright. See Telstra v Desktop Marketing Systems. User A1 (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

when you cite a court case, even if it is a link, it is also a citation of the law. This is how the majority of legal pages do it, and is common outside wikipedia.

yes please put more globalized information, or take it out if this is too general of a place for itScientus (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Startcolaearly.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Startcolaearly.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please also see this related discussion. Thanks. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at Office Open XML and, my pet peeve, gratuitously labelling other peoples edits as vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the Office Open XML and Microsoft articles

You have been repeatedly removing information from the Office open XML article about community sites that support Office open XML

It is obvious these sites support Office Open XML even in the names of the sites themselves:

http://openxmldeveloper.org/ http://www.openxmlcommunity.org

Added to that the sites themselves provide statements that the sites support Office Open XML which is exactly as the Office Open XML wikipedia article states they do.

You claim false reasons for removal of the information. For instance a conflict of interest where of course there is non, as the sites stating they support Office Open XML and the article also stating that the sites are there for supporting Office Open XML is for all to see easily. Also false claims on verifiabilty as the sites are very obvious in their info about providing support for Office open XML and the provided info can be used as verifiable sources as described in WP:SELFPUB where it is clearly confirmed that self publicated references can be used as verifiable sources.

As is discussed and agreed to at Talk:Office_Open_XML#MS self-published, you have attempted to hide the identities of these sites as Microsoft-run promotional sites. You have done so to create the illusion that these sites are 3rd-party are are somehow "responses" to OOXML. This idea that they are "responses" is a fase, as they are published by Microsoft, the same company that created the standard, there is a word for this sort of action, and its called sockpuppetry.

Furthurmore you cite WP:SELFPUB, but fail to read it. Notice its rules

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Scientus (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You have also been repeatedly removing clearly sourced information on the Microsoft article. For instance:

Article: Microsoft has phased out the use of polyvinyl chloride plastic in its packaging material, due to environmental concerns Source: Microsoft, in response to environmental concerns, will phase out all use of polyvinyl chloride plastic by the end of the year, the software giant announced Wednesday

Source: "Microsoft is joining other industry titans such as Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Sharp and Samsung that have recently taken steps to eliminate their use of polyvinyl chloride plastics, otherwise known as PVC or vinyl, in the packaging of their products."

yet you consistently remove from the Article: "following action by competitors"Scientus (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

and

Article: Microsoft's newest building on its campus in Hyderabad, India was built as an environmentally friendly structure Source: Microsoft opened the doors to Building 2 on our new campus in Hyderabad, India. Building 2 is a state-of-the-art building that incorporates sound environmental design and furniture made by local Indian companies

"sound environmental design" != "environmentally friendly". In fact "sound environmental design" could mean almost anything, as is to vague to be citable in any matter-of-fact way. Also, how reliable is http://greencorporateamerica.blogspot.com ? The publisher has no name, no street address, and it is posted in a free blog. Furthurmore, none of the blog posts have any sources, and there are no comments to any posts. This is clearly not a Misplaced Pages:reliable source, it is a pulp mill.Scientus (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop from removing this fully sourced information. hAl (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC

Please stop adding unsourced information, and information from sites with conflicts of interest and hiding their identify, and unverifiable sources.Scientus (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Violence against supporters of abortion rights‎

I think you messed up with the title Violence against supporters of abortion rights‎. I personally think that title is a bit verbose, but that aside, don't you mean opponents, not supporters? The way the title reads to me is the opposite of what is in the article (pro-life claims that pro-choicers can be violent). -Andrew c  13:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, so many double negatives I screwed up. the "pro-abortion" was simply wrong however. How about "abortion rights violence"? "pro-choice violence"? "violence by supporters of abortion rights", i think the last is least POV.--nah cause its ambiouous of _why_ the action is happening. how about "Violence in support of abortion rights"? I guess none of these are very good and it can go back, as it is claiming there are some who are pro-abortion. Scientus (talk)

Edit warring by user:Scientus and disruptive editting by user:scientus

You have been repeatly been reverting edits on my talk page.

Examples:

It seems you are intent on edit warring against me. You should mayby be reminded that I can keep reverting your edit on my own talk page as much as I want as ones own personal user talk pages is exempt from the 3RR rules. You however have already been breaching the rules not just on my talk page but also on the Office Open XML article several times.

You behaviour on my talk page and on the Office Open XML aticle as discussed in Talk:Office_Open_XML#Vandalism and edit warring by User:Scientus also qualifies as tendentious and disruptive editing as per WP:Disruptive editing showing disruptive deletions and distruptive cite-tagging and lack of consensus building where as your action on my talk page are part of Campaign to drive away prodcutive contributors

I strongly suggest you stop your edit warring and disruptive editing on the Office Open XML article immediatly. hAl (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ribbon

Actually, sorry for reversions, but its because mainly, of the non-free content criteria. I do not consider it vandalism because I only count bad-faith changes as vandalism. But anyway, if there is a free content illustration of a subject, non-free images are not allowed for it. The usage of it in Office 2007 is notable because it was the primary implementation. The Bluefish screenshot illustrates the same content as the Homesite screen so I believe removal of it will not affect the reader's understanding. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that is reasonable. But when discussing legal matters I do believe it is a clear fair use. Soory, your edit was in good faity, and i should WP:AGF. The problem with the Bluefish is that it may not be early enough to be prior art, so should not be given that description without some research. For these reasons the Homesite picture is irreplaceable in this context. I do believe non-free content use should be minimized. Scientus (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but...I may put it back...subject to a potential IFD discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Homesite-2.5.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Homesite-2.5.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Health care in the United States

Some the the refs on Health care in the United States are now broken due to recent edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

fixedScientus (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel so free to make claims about the source and percentages of research funding in health care? I would agree (though I have no evidence-- nor have you submitted any) that NIH is probably key in basic research. However there is a research and development pipeline and as you move towards the market this gets increasingly biased towards corporations. Can we agree on that? Mrdthree (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Intellectual monopoly privilege

An editor has nominated Intellectual monopoly privilege, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Intellectual monopoly privilege and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States

Thanks for investing the time and energy to clean up the arguments-for-and-against section of this article. It's been a mess for awhile. I personally found it too much to parse through to bring it more in keeping with the core content policies, but minor quibbles aside, you've made fairly quick work of it, which is definitely appreciated. So, thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be bold and change those things that you find issue with.Scientus (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in AB 390, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The correctional officer's long title is already linked; a summary inside () is not necessary and changes the tone of the writing. Just be mindful of that in the future. Thanks! <tommy> (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Scientus (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

odd comment

Not sure why you reopened this , but the issue had been resolved already ,.TVC 15 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because I was leaving a note on that same page. I'm caught up now, and do not raise issue. Scientus (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Binary executable file2.png

File:Binary executable file2.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Binary executable file2.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:HAl

Hello Scientus. It is probably better not to continue an editorial dispute on the talk page of somebody who is blocked. Regarding the Office Open XML article, I see that an RfC is running, which is good, but it does not seem wise for you to keep on reverting the article before editors on the talk page have arrived at a consensus. User:Ghettoblaster has apparently been reverting as well. If people aren't willing to wait for a consensus, admins might step in with full protection for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The only edit to the article I did was unreverting the undiscussed, and wholesale revert done by user:Ghettoblaster . Ghettoblaster is always the first, and usually the only user to defend HAl. I am waiting for discussion, but for Ghettoblaster to revert all of HAl's edit wars, and do so against consensus, without reason, and without discussion was not appropriate.

while I understand that HAl is currently blocked, I do not see why this should stop discussion. I was mearly responding to HAl's comments in showing that those he accuses to be dominating the article have been denied even a mention of their positions repeatedly by user:HAl. It wasn't meant to reopen any discussion.

I have no problem with a editing the article civilly, but Ghettoblaster's wholesale revert was not with consensus nor even discussed, and went against a number of established consensus's.Scientus (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor Ghettoblaster gets any credit for reverting before a talk page discussion is finished. You would show more respect for consensus by not reverting at all. One way to stop the revert-happy participants would be to impose a rule of one revert per person per week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR note.

Please take care on the Alan Grayson article, you are on the verge of a 3RR report, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Most are not actually reverts.Scientus (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any alteration to a good faith edit from another user is a revert, please take a little time to read the revert article WP:3RR , ta. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First: I have made some reverts. But “Any alteration to a good faith edit from another user is a revert,″ would apply to _every edit_ besides the inclusion of new content. This is not correct. Also “The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.”Scientus (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that you have already broken 3RR, this is just a warning to take it easy, the talkpage is the place to go, reverting something because you don't like it is not the way to edit, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But “Any alteration to a good faith edit from another user is a revert,″ would apply to _every edit_ besides the inclusion of new content.

And attacking me with a 3rd person remark, “reverting something because you don't like it is not the way to edit”, does not help.Scientus (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

yes, tell me to take it easy, but don't passively-aggressively threaten me. Please.Scientus (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have got it, you can add as much as you want all day every day, no problem. If you don't like the wording of something that another editor has inserted and you change the wording that is a revert.Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to attack you, but to help you. I have also left 3RR notes at the other two editors involved. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I just read that, sorry, I should WP:AGF. However, I do think your comments could be stated clearer.Scientus (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For exmaple, this, which was due to my misspelling.

You just made this revert, are you joking? Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After I warned you about your edits to the Grayson article you have again reverted, I will ask you to revert it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reported you at the 3RR board here. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A page you have been involved in editing is under discussion here. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your input is desired

Please go to: Talk:Alan Grayson#POV. We're reaching a consensus and I'd like your input! Thanks A8UDI talk 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:OSshare-microsoft-internal.png

Thank you for uploading File:OSshare-microsoft-internal.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is: Why do we have to have this image? The "Strategies" and "Revenue Realization" sections can easily be recreated with text. The charts in the "Share" section can be made by hand. And the "Investments" sections can be duplicated with a wikitable. Please see WP:NFCC#1; in order to use a non-free image, it must be impossible to make a replacement of "acceptable quality." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this. I just see the image as adding alot because it is clear. It also doesn't declare percentages, so its really itsself, and cannot be recreated in text. Also, before there were numbers that put Linux much lower that are highly questionable. Microsoft has no incentive to overestimate Linux market share, so their number should at least be considered the lower bound.Scientus (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we recreate a free image of the pie charts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we have no idea what the numbers are that go into it. We would be taking a wild guess.Scientus (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Scientus, I find that it is better to leave people that have a couple of thousand edits a friendly note rather than a newbie template, especially if you are in dispute with that editor, unnecessary templates only serve to increase tension. (IMO) Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One of your reverts has again been reverted and in an attempt to stop this tit for tat editing, a discussion has been started here on the talk page, I look forward to your joining in there, regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OOXML editing

I've removed the COI tag from the Office Open XML article, as it was transparently being used as an ad hominem attack on an editor you disagree with. Please consider whether treating the article as a battleground is really likely to get the best result; an editor who caused several years of disruption on articles in that domain has been removed from the equation, and I'd rather not have to go through the same steps to prevent tendicious editing from editors on the other side of the debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that the article has stabilized.Scientus (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Health care in the United States, article lead

I apologize for my haste with the article lead last week. Previously there was a user who argued that the lead was imbalanced in that it offered too many negative aspects of health care in the US, and that for the sake of balancing positive with negative we ought make the observation about US companies' global leadership in medical product and pharmaceutical R&D which was sourced to documents produced by their European competitors. I'd thought we should keep the note about US pharmaceutical companies in the article lead as that user had advocated, with some modifications I and others made earlier so as to not to include any puffery but instead keep it a straightforward statement about US companies' leadership in this area, leaving the details to the section on medical product R&D.
..... But that was before the reliable sources were brought to my attention indicating that an extremely high percentage of this leadership (well over half) consists of lifestyle drugs and the like, while conspicuously neglecting many critical areas of disease that widely affect impoverished populations (including right within the US). This is in addition to the RSs' showing that substantially more is spent on marketing than on R&D (which would almost require a statement in the lead that US companies also spend far more on marketing than their overseas competitors, and probably also require yet additional material to achieve NPOV). In light of these issues which severely complicate the analysis of what's meant by "global leader", your approach of removing the brief statement about pharmaceutical R&D from the lead seems very reasonable to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

grayson

Please do not mass edit the article without discussion, please use the talk page. Off2riorob (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over the article, use the talk page to discuss your issues. Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning 3RR on Alan Grayson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alan Grayson. 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.

ANI notice

Hello, Scientus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

re:message

Scientus, you're free to continue to fill my discussion page with frivelous comments, but it's a waste of the both of our time. Please try to concentrate on improving articles instead. Trilemma (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma, you continue to fill my talk page with frivolous (note spelling) whining, and it's a waste of my time. Please stop tenaciously editing without reason, as it is certainly not improving the article. Scientus (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, please stop littering my talk page with messages. If you do so again, I will file an arbitration report. Trilemma (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint against you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Editing_and_User_Talk_page_abuse_by_Scientus Trilemma (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have additionally filed a sock puppet complaint against you. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scientus Trilemma (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Improper use of minor edit, false claim of non WP:RS

The edit in question happened on October 5. I haven't even touched the article in at least a month. Not sure why you're still hung up about it? Perhaps it's time to turn the computer off for a little while, go outside, and maybe see some sunlight? Dr. Cash (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning 3RR on User talk:Trilemma

Please stop reverting on User talk:Trilemma, it is his talkpage and he is allowed to remove anything he wants from there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

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

Request reason:

No reason given for block, what edits? What discussion?

Decline reason:

You were told at 17:38, December 4, to stop reverting the talk page of User:Trilemma. At 18:48, December 4 you reverted it two more times, after you were told to stop. Additionally, it appears you have been edit warring at Alan Grayson, having reverted the article several times in the past 2 days,something you were specifically told to stop doing two weeks ago. As this block request does not address either of these problems, I see no reason to unblock you.Jayron32 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Trusted Computing

Hello, please enumerate which aspects of my contribution to the Trusted Computing page were not factual or fair, or are biased. You state that you removed my contribution to "Trusted Computing" because you believe it constitutes advertising or promotional material. In fact I did my best to constructively improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of trusted computing, describing even the controversy and leaving all previous criticism untouched, because I am an expert in trusted computing. I followed Misplaced Pages's guidelines, even posting a draft of my contribution before changing the main page. I hear comments from newcomers interested in trusted computing that the previous version, which you have reinstated, does not satisfy their curiosity. It does not describe the context or development of trusted computing, or adequately describe the essential features of the technology, or the technical problems, or both sides of the controversy surrounding trusted computing, or even why the technology is called trusted computing. Please respond either here or on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Walklooker, where you posted your orginal comment. Walklooker (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientus, I am given to understand that it is unreasonable to expect a prompt response in Misplaced Pages discussions. In the meantime, however, please note that I have posted additional information on the talk page of “Trusted Computing”.Walklooker (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDENScientus (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientus, I would appreciate a more constructive engagement than this, in order to assist in the development of a better description of Trusted Computing for Misplaced Pages. Please describe the parts of the revamp that you consider to constitute advertising and promotional material, in order that I will be better able to address your concerns. I will also assemble authoritative sources that support my factual description of trusted computing technology, although I do not have time to do that immediately. Walklooker (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:OSshare-microsoft-internal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).