User talk:Anville
You're wrong. I'm right.
And that won't change, not even if we fight!
—Mary Prankster, "Tell Your Friends (Part Deux)"
Anville
|
 Archives |
|---|
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Bogdanov Affair
Your welcome. I found the article from browsing down into Category:Banned Wikipedia users (a short list, though at least two editors I've edited with have ended up on it lately), so I was really surprised by finding a quality well-ref'd article considering the rathole I'd just crawled through, and even more so after the scary "Give up all hope ye who enter here" Gates of Hell-like intro-box. I remembered hearing about the affair back in 2002. I figured it was worth a discussion, though cries of "too soon" were expected. -- Kendrick7talk 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Damn it...
... I hope you'll come back. Metamagician3000 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I see you've been contributing! Time to lose the "leaving Wikipedia" box? Metamagician3000 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the ArbCom handled the Pseudoscience and ScienceApologist cases in a pretty judicious way. While I have often been frustrated by Wikipedia's inability to deal with chronic problems — cruft buildup in Featured Articles, for example — whenever a group of Wikipedians is forced to make a judgment call, it seems to work out well by the time the bits settle. Anville 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
And Chaos
Good work on the article. I've changed my vote. If you haven't already, I recommend contacting the original AFD nominator and request he/she withdraw the nomination. Failing that, if the article is deleted it can always been recreated. Do you know the year the book was published? There should be a year category added to the article. 23skidoo 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)