Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote: 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)

--------------------------------

I would like to thank those who took the time to indicate their opinion about your poor handling of the situation, and/or those who took the time to point out to some of the numerous inaccuracies in your statements and reasoning about the current situation of Ga�a�s articles.

I also would perhaps emit some doubts on your ability to read things and interpret situations that others appear to understand, even though they were not part of either this debate, nor the previous debate with Little Fat Boudha.

You appear unable to decipher who created pages, why they did so, who agreed on their creation or who asked for their deletion, who proposed new naming and who refused them, who set disambigation pages to try to solve the issue.

Ultimately, this is fine by me, for it is precisely what some propose that Gaia is, a system resulting from the action and the co-evolution of the numerous organisms part of it. To the point, the state of evolution in which the planetary system is, cannot be said to be entirely due to one organism or another. Similarly, the quality of the articles cannot be said to be from one author or another, but the holistic results of multiple interactions.

I also think we are typically in a homeorhetic system, where a system can assume several stable positions over time, with periods of great destabilization each time a crisis occurs, followed by oscillations around a new stable position. Three days ago, the more than year old gaia articles system was quite stable, the last small oscillations due to Little Fat Budda tentative putsch. It was stable, and imho quite well informed.

This crisis, resulting in 3 (not 5) articles - with at least one of them requiring work for the triad to be really informative � will maybe (probably, or I would complain about it, which I do not do) prove to be beneficial.

But when next destabilization occur, who will be able to put an author/name responsible for the previous stable state ? who will be able to put an author/name responsible for the last crisis ? no one I hope. And would that matter ???

Just as you should understand that I, Anthere, am only an element/author among others, and that I hold no specific responsibility of what the previous stable state was. Other than stabilizing it for a while perhaps. So, now, the effort should be put on reclaiming the current articles, not on feeble attempts to dirty the past and other contributors.

This said, I ���apologize��� for my too-bold reversions. These were non-constructive. As most reversions are perhaps.

Last little point though, my opinion that you don�t really make the effort to read what other people are trying tell you is also supported by the following fact : in spite of other people addressing their comment to ���you��� (hopefully, you read them), and using feminine grammatical form when talking about me, you persist in referring to me as a male. This is not exactly a sign of attention toward these people discourse, ���or��� not exactly a sign of respect toward other people specificities. I know not which of the two.

I am glad finally, that you seem to have understood the changes I made a couple of hours ago. I thank you.

Regards

Anthere

(stripped of her accent unfortunately, but with an "e" at the end of the name)

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).