Anthere writes:
Plus Wapcaplet who had a third opinion, different from mine, and different from yours. With whom I discussed. And who now is busy trying to soothe us. 3 persons make the world.
That is disingenuous. You were using mass-reversions to unilaterally delete all content I tried to add, even though you couldn't state a reason. Normally, people back up their deletions with reasons. But yesterday you were unable to come up with a single content-based reason.
The name the articles had this morning were all given long before I even discovered Wikipedia. Since these articles were written by several authors, I guess that makes more than me using that terminology :-)
Oh come on, that is disingenuous. A few of us are trying to clean up this horrible mess, and Anthere alone repeatedly prevented any fixes.
You sure could not edit *my* contributions as I basically made none on these articles, except tiny fixes, and move of the DaisyWorld in a separate article, with active agreement of Lexor then and passive of at least Mav.
So why then are you being so posessive, and refusing any of my contributions about science? I don't care if you have "adopted" someone else's text, or wrote it yourself. You are wrong either way. You may not claim ownership of all these articles. That is not the way Wikipedia works.
Duh. Sure. Threatened by science. I have been raised in science, I graduated in several sciences fields. I work in science. This is so scary
Then why are you so bothered when I added more scientific discussion of the topic? Why prevent any more discussion and contribution? Since yesteday you gave no reasons, you left no choice but to speculate on your motives. Please use the TALK pages, and not just use mass-reversions. That is against Wikipedia etiquette.
Anthere has created, or supported the creation of: [[Gaia hypothesis]] [[Gaia theory]] (lower case t) [[Gaia Theory]] (upper case T) [[Gaia theory (biology]] [[Gaia theory (homeostais)]] (And a few more!)
Sure. Gaia hypothesis was created before feb 2002. But I support the unknown person who created it :-)...
Anthere's discussion that followed was misleading. The fact is that no one in science uses the bizarre terminology that Anthere insists on keeping. Also, the fact remains that Anthere keeps refusing any consolidation, making the current set of five articles confusing to scientists, let alone laypeople.
And ALL OF THESE are on the same topic. The content is or was nearly identical!
YES ! The content is REDIRECT [[Gaia theory]] or equivalent ! AMAZINGLY IDENTICAL
Oh, Anthere, that is very misleading; most of these Gaia articles were NOT redirects at the time this started. Most of the ones that now are redirects, were created yesterday by *ME*, and this was against Anthere's wishes. He is now taking credit for work I did, as if he suddenly hadn't been fighting against it.
Now, I am happy to see that he apparently agrees with me on those particular redirects..but perplexed to see him take my position as his own.
Being a biologist myself, as well as an agronomist, and an enginneer (I never remember how to spell that word) in food science and biotechnologies, with a minor in computer science, and focusing my writings on biodiversity and ecosystems, I happen to know that others use *my* bizarre terminology.
You are confused. Your terminology does not appear in any textbook or science article. No one in science has separate discussion on the Gaia Hypothesis (capital H), Gaia Theory (capital-case T), Gaia theory (lowercase t), Gaia theory (homeostasis), etc. Your are fooling yourself, or are not widely read. Please stop making these incorrect claims.
Of course (as I have said all along), scientists *do* distinguish between the various forms of Gaia hypotheses; I have never claimed otherwise, and I have repeatedly *agreed* with you on this point. (I cannot understand why you refuse to take "Yes" for an answer.)
Of course scientists distinguish between weak claims of world-wide homeostatis, stronger claims of world-wide homeostatis, stronger claims that the planet itself is a living cell, etc. And of course it may be appropriate to have more than one (sensibly titled) article on this subject (and I never said otherwise.)
You are still fighting against things I have not said, and agaist positions that I do not have. That is why the edit war existed.
BTW, I take offense at the insults that others on this list sent me in response to my message. Stop insulting my knowledge of this subject; that's just childish. Further, I am surprised to see someone admit that they will refuse to agree with me, even thought they admit I might have a good point, just because they disagree with how I characterized the situation. Making decisions based on semantics is not proper, and does not reflect the level of mature professionalism this encyclopaedia requires.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com