Talk:Petr Vaníček/Archive 1

message: I would like to point out to Anynobody that Dicklyon's behavior has been criticized by three different editors in just a few last days. So besides me catching his blunders and his interrogation-like attitude, Zvika has noticed that Dicklyon was bashing (I have to be frank: Zvika said I was bashing too). Finally, see User talk:Dicklyon "Mass Energy" section, where Likebox finds him "expressing somewhat uncommon thoughts". (In there, Dicklyon also calls inertial mass -- initial mass (sic)!)  So based on here demonstrated strange logics of his (to put it mildly), indicating the I-take-it-personal blur of vision while warning of possible incompetence in this case too, I request Anynobody to please remove the tags on Petr Vaníček and Vaníček analysis.  --Geoeg 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to challenge my competence, I'm sure you can find something better than my typos and talk-page comments.  But please read WP:NPA and try to get back to the topic of this talk page. Dicklyon 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are doing it again, that selective memory thing you do each time someone pins you in the corner. If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it swims like a duck... heck, then it must be an elephant.  Unfortunately for you, it's far from just "typos and comments": too much arrogance noticed by (at least) three different people and over such a short period of time... Who are you kidding here... --Geoeg 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]]'s incompetence? 

message: At this point, I no longer strongly care whether this is the correct version: this is approaching WP:3RR and it needs to stop. Let's all please try and come to consensus, rather than launching a full scale edit war over some tags. Thank you. --Bfigura (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. As a sign of good will, I edited the method page where it talks about Scargle's paper (claiming no new method). I hope Dicklyon can appreciate this. --Geoeg 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Dicklyon has continued with placing the illegitimate tags, ten minutes after my offer above. He even reverted the above edit on Scargle's paper, that was entirely neutral. So I suppose he refused your proposal? --Geoeg 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then he refused to obide by policy? --Geoeg 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: → Crossposted from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg
Geoeg's violations of civility and no personal attacks policies have been larded with untruths as well.  For example, in one message which he posted twice at 23:51 and 23:52 UTC on 8 October:
* False: Lyon "is trying to separate" the two disputes
* True: Lyon's request for a third opinion listed them together.
* False: someone "said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing" on Talk:Vaníček analysis
* True: Zvika, the only other editor who had posted on either talk page before then, had not said that.
These examples are only two of many such distortions of fact.  Might a brief block have some effect on Geoeg's attack posting and disruptive edit warring?  — Athaenara  ✉  22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted a minor clarification in the other place; Geoeg, see that before picking on the exact details above. Dicklyon 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would state loud and clear what that hidden "other place" is, I might even (be able to) do that.  Anyway, as I said earlier, Zvika has indeed said that both of us were bashing, where both, according to Merriam-Webster's, includes a minimum of two persons, therefore it includes Dicklyon as well. Athaenara: Since you volunteered as a Dicklyon's attorney, you should not just extract one of his actions where he mentioned both articles, you should look at all of the instances including those where he has not. Finally, I really think that you two spend too much time looking for all sorts of regulations and advisories, and then return here to share with us your rigid reading of those, instead of using your energy to actually contribute to the articles. --Geoeg 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That other place" is accessed via the blue link above after "crossposted from".  Dicklyon 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another button you might want to learn about is the one called "history" at the top of each page.  In the list of diffs, by time and editor, clicking on "last" will show you what they changed from the last version; clicking on cur will show you how the current version differs from any version in the list.  That way, you won't have to keep attributing things to the wrong person and hallucinating your own version of what's going on. Dicklyon 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you simply must comment on someone being a newbie? Very low. As far as the "hallucinating" goes, well, it sure comes from an expert in Advanced Imagination 101.  --Geoeg 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crosspost

message: I'm puzzled that there are still some attempts to put back the Notability tag. The J. Tuzo Wilson Medal shows that he is an important geophysicist. No reason why we can't search for still more reliable sources, but I think notability is established. WP is also impressed when someone has been the editor of a scientific journal, something that's claimed in the article but will hopefully get a reference soon. EdJohnston 14:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, thanks for your comments.  Let me first repeat that I am not saying he's not notable, just trying to get make sure we get citations to independent sources to establish that he is.  I'm not familiar with that medal, but if you are I'll take your word for it that it means he is an important geophysicist.  But see WP:NOTE where it says: This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".  If you see something in the guidelines I missed, exceptions to the need for citations to independent sources, in such cases (like there are exceptions for cities and national political office holders, if I recall correctly), please do point them out.  I'm pretty sure that if this article were nominated for deletion, arguments such as yours would be enough to save it; but it's not enough to satisfy the requirements that notability be supported by evidence, which is what the tag is calling for; the inclusion in the tag of an implied threat to delete is unfortunate, so maybe we should work on changing that. Dicklyon 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If any of these four people you mention care enough to discuss it, then I will listen to them and discuss it with civility, as above with EdJohnson.  If any of them state that they strongly believe I am wrong, I won't object when they remove the notability tag.  I'm happy to discuss the issue with someone other than the person with obvious WP:COI. Dicklyon 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: See WP:RFC/USER at Requests for comment/Geoeg.  — Athaenara  ✉  02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment/User conduct 

message: I don't know who is right or wrong on this page (and to be frank, I don't care) but this page has caused at least three listings on WP:AN3 in the last week. That, to me, says it needs to be protected, and I have protected it for a week. I would recommend that you take the time to discuss rather than shaping up to start reverting again when the protection drops off. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  After Geoeg is unblocked we'll try some discussion.  Dicklyon 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't think discussion is a good idea?  Is that why you haven't responded on the RFC page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geoeg yet? Dicklyon 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected