--- Robert <rkscience100(a)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