[WikiEN-l] Anthere's Gaia obsession.

[Anthere]

--- Robert <rkscience100 at 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