[WikiEN-l] Response to Anthere; the many Gaia articles

[Robert]

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