Folks, we currently have an edit-war between Anthere and the world over the Gaia theory article.
But not over the content. This has nothing to do with content, or with POV. Rather, it has to do with his bizarre obsession with creating his own names that NO ONE ELSE in science uses, and urging the creating of multiplw articles with nearly the same name, and almost the same content.
I can understand when someone gets into a flame-war or edit-war when someone rewrites their contributions. But this is happening when I am NOT rewriting his contributions, but am merely moving biological scientific studies out of a social-science discussion, into the science-section of an article. I think he is threatened by science maybe? I dunno...
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!)
And ALL OF THESE are on the same topic. The content is or was nearly identical!
Being a scientist, I happen to know that no one uses Anthere's bizarre terminology. All of these articles refer to the same set of Gaia theories. But Anthere keeps refusing any consolidation. That's just odd.
Problem 1: The discussion consensus so far has been clear: Others are also confused about this bizarre naming system, and want a better naming system. Anthere's fractionated current system only misdirects anyone trying to learn about the topic.
Problem 2: It is a violation of our naming conventions to have nearly identical content, with nearly identical titles, differentiated by only a lower-case versus upper-case letter!
Problem 3: Anthere has effectively claimed ownership of the article, and currently won't let me add anything. Yet (bizarrely!) he claims that he is being censored. I find this claim outrageous, as I don't care what he writes. He can write anything he likes, and I am NOT deleting it. He is just being paranoid.
Problem 4: Someone has accused me of "SCIENTISM" (whatever that is supposed to be) for saying that the articles on this scientific topic should have more science! They also are asking me to stop preventing them from discussing religious and mythological views of the topic...but I am not doing this. I can't stop doing something that I simply was not doing to begin with!
With concerns,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
Folks, we currently have an edit-war between Anthere and the world over the Gaia theory article.
No. Actually, between you and I. That is far enough not to add the rest of the world :-)
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.
But not over the content. This has nothing to do with content, or with POV. Rather, it has to do with his bizarre obsession with creating his own names that NO ONE ELSE in science uses, and urging the creating of multiplw articles with nearly the same name, and almost the same content.
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 :-)
I can understand when someone gets into a flame-war or edit-war when someone rewrites their contributions. But this is happening when I am NOT rewriting his contributions
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.
but am merely moving biological
scientific studies out of a social-science discussion, into the science-section of an article. I think he is threatened by science maybe? I dunno...
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
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 :-)
[[Gaia theory]] in april 2002. I agree my first edits were about that time. But I really don't think I created this article :-)
Gaia theory (biology) was created today, and not by me. Proposed by another one. But, right, I support it.
The other ones...I certainly have created some of them. Quite a while ago now. A little issue with a fat buddha...some might remember.
After the disagreement, the articles were proposed for deletion. But it was decided to keep them.
Do you have a pb with redirects ?
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
Being a scientist, I happen to know that no one uses Anthere's bizarre terminology.
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.
Maybe we live on a different planet ?
What is your science field ?
No...try saying again I do not know how to read english properly. Here, you can win a point
All of these
articles refer to the same set of Gaia theories.
Yes. Same set for those who do not understand them :-)
But Anthere keeps
refusing any consolidation. That's just odd.
Very odd.
Problem 1: The discussion consensus so far has been clear: Others are also confused about this bizarre naming system, and want a better naming system.
Others are called RK and Wapcaplet. We clearly have a consensus here.
Anthere's
fractionated current system only misdirects anyone trying to learn about the topic.
Check history again rk. The 3 articles existed before I came to wikipedia. I did no fractionning (except for the Daisyworld article about which no one is complaining) It is not *mine* fractionnated system. Btw, it is no more fractionnated now, and I agree with the new division, so what is exactly the pb here ?
Problem 2: It is a violation of our naming conventions to have nearly identical content,
Nearly identical content is an interpretation of someone who does not appear to understand the content. Here, you get a point. That is a deep problem :)
with nearly identical
titles, differentiated by only a lower-case versus upper-case letter!
Violation also perhaps for animal names...yes
That discussion over the naming convention already happened some time ago. And apparently, there was a consensus over it. However, I discussed other options this very day with Wapcaplet... until the moment you decided unilateraly to unite the articles (while pretending there was a consensus). There was no consensus as Wapcaplet stated in the discussion.
Problem 3: Anthere has effectively claimed ownership of the article, and currently won't let me add anything. Yet (bizarrely!) he claims that he is being censored.
There is no such he
I don't remember where I said I was censored ? Did I say that ?
I> find
this claim outrageous, as I don't care what he writes.He can write anything he likes, and I am NOT deleting it.
You couldnot really, since I wrote nothing.
He is just being paranoid.
Toward people calling me liar, vandal, etc...yes, after a while, I feel a little bit paranoid. I agree
My pb is that when I tried to discuss the naming issue with you, you just dropped the discussion and boldly made the changes without agreement from Wapcaplet and I. Now, I see not very much why I would spent time explaining in length, if you don't care about my comments. I also started to edit the page with your changes 2 times, and both times, I had to cancel everything, because of an edit conflict (for you reverted on sight.
Some of your edits are good, but some are very pov. You also removed *huge* chunks of text, probably because of your own scientific pov
Problem 4: Someone has accused me of "SCIENTISM" (whatever that is supposed to be) for saying that the articles on this scientific topic should have more science!
If you promise to be nice and patient, I promise to add some stuff in the biological article :-)
They also are asking me to stop preventing them from discussing religious and mythological views of the topic...but I am not doing this. I can't stop doing something that I simply was not doing to begin with!
This is clearly not a problem related to me. Though I also agree with that "someone" (at the beginning) and with "they" (after). You appear to have a whole group of people in disagreement with you
With concerns,
Robert (RK)
poor thing :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
RK wrote at first:
Folks, we currently have an edit-war between Anthere and the world over the Gaia theory article.
I think that I'm going to make it a point of principle to always side against whoever shouts "VANDALISM" in the edit history. (Except in case of actual vandalism, of course.)
Still, since such principles shouldn't decide everything:
* Anthere isn't the only person that's been disagreeing with you. Unless you think that she's secretly Wapcaplet and EofT? * She never wrote 5 articles, only 4, one of which was a historical disambiguation page (read it's Talk to see how it came about). Every other article is a result of moves (unless there's been deletion). * I have no idea if the various people's theories are the same or not. But I can't imagine that you must know simply because you're a scientist. If you've actually studied Gaia theories, then let us know.
-- Toby