Talk:Petr Vaníček/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Petr Vaníček notability

Hello, I added one of the two main sources for this biography, the "Biographical Database entry for Petr Vaníček, Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (SVU)". The other source I used was already listed ("J. Tuzo Wilson Medal citation for Petr Vaníček"). Sorry about not providing the main source right away! I hope this settles it now. --Geoeg 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(above comment moved here from my user talk page). Geoeg, thanks for that, it looks like a good source, even though apparently unpublished, anonymous, and associated with his institution. What's needed to establish notability, however, are independent sources. That is, not written by his students and former students (like the Tuzo Wilson Medal citation) or by his instituion (like the Honoring the Academic Life document). Dicklyon 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you call the SVU "his institution"? Apparently, you have not checked the Wikipedia page on this notable society: Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (SVU). I don't know how much more notable and independent a source can get? It seems to me like the Nobel Committee itself wouldn't satisfy you, for neither do they "publish" biographies of the recipients. The Wilson Medal Citation is authentic of course, or are you saying that Dr. Craymer has made it up? Whew, come on, give me a break. You should really see Ignore all rules, as at this point, given also your misinterpretation of the man's method you demonstrated on Talk:Vaníček analysis, I believe you are flying off the handle -- big time! --Geoeg 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I made a mistake on his relationship to the SVU; but don't get all huffy on me. Of course I'm not saying that Craymer made anything up; I consider his citation to be a reliable reference. But there's a difference between a reliable reference as a source of material, and the requirements for WP:NOTE, which are basically "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;" coverage in the form of praise by his ex-students, not even in an editted publication, hardly counts as significant independent coverage. Unfortunately the anonymous doc file at SVU fails to live up to reliable and independent, since we can't even tell who wrote it, or when; do you know who it was? Dicklyon 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to negotiate this with me, as that's not the only mistake you had made; I'm not in for trading valid arguments for your vanity medicine. Everything I wrote is well referenced. Is it my fault that there are such notable individuals who are out there and still alive and kickin' ? Should we bake them first so they're ready for inclusion into Wikipedia? Of course I don't "know who it was" that wrote the SVU biography, I'm not that notable to have access. But perhaps you should ask Vaclav Havel or Nobelist Jaroslav Seifert, I'm sure they go around and put their unworthy names into just anyone's hands like the SVU's. Or, at the minimum, they can point to you the culprit who made up their biography entries. Go get 'em Sherlock! --Geoeg 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain, since you are pretty new to wikipedia. The notability tag should stay for a while, to remind editors to look for independent sources in support of notability. Otherwise, the article is in danger of being nominated for deletion. Please don't remove the tag until someone finds and cites independent sources.

That tag warned that the page could be scheduled for deletion (for whatever reason). What a magnet for real vandals, don't you think? In the meantime, while our dispute is being resolved, here is something for you to read: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. (From vandalism.) --Geoeg 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I realized that the doc file at SVU might have the author listed in the file info; sure enough, it does, and it says it was written by Petr Vanicek himself. So, clearly not an item in support of notability, but still, a likely reliable source of biographical details. Dicklyon 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your third mistake today! Too many in a day. Checking out... --Geoeg 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The only mistake I can think of that you're referring to is when I called the SVU "his institution". I should have said "an institution that he is a Fellow of". Dicklyon 03:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the (first) one you admitted; look again for others. By the way, when faced with multiple counter-arguments like here, do you always respond selectively or is this the first such mistake (of ignoring the above counter-argument)? --Geoeg 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any counter-arguments. I tend to ignore off-topic remarks. Dicklyon 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Evading/discussing the issues selectively won't help solve the problem. --Geoeg 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• On notability of SVU: in spite of bombastic tone of the article this organisation not very known or influential in the Czech Republic. It is one of Czechoslovak emigrant organizations with with grand name and less in behind (that they honor some big names means really nothing). Biography of their members on their website should not be taken as independent source of information. Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading their own report: these biographies are created by the people themselves. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request which was listed on the Wikipedia:Third opinion project page.

1. Posts from the Geoeg account have been quite uncivil, in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. That account, which is apparently a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, was registered just one week ago. The user is advised to read the civility and the ownership of articles policies and strive to comply with them rather than violate them. The Wikipedia:Etiquette guideline and Suggestions for COI compliance essay are also very helpful.
2. Posts from Dicklyon addressed legitimate concerns with respect to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. These include the notability guideline. There is nothing personal about such concerns: they pertain to all articles in this encyclopedia.
3. As noted in the {{Primarysources}} template, which I have added to the article, “the article needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.”

This discussion page is now on my watchpage: please post any responses here rather than on my user talk page. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew, what an entry (even though I don't recall sending you any requests?)! You definitely have style. As far as your allegation on my posts "been quite uncivil, in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy", I notice how many people on here enjoy throwing various mile-long rules and regulations at a newbie, without ever pointing at the exact paragraph in that plethora of words. Please tell me those were just your brownie points? I mean, has copy-paste become too difficult in the past few days? Let me too drink from the same well of almighty knowledge you all have been drinking from! Seriously now, who can believe that finding a single Article in a Law necessitates reading through an entire Law Library? Get real, or you will repel quality people and attract... well, you get my point. Be it noted also that the age of an account plus whatever activity by the account holder seems to be primary leverage used to impose one's authority on here (Oh, Thy Elderly!) (Although, both editors that discussed this page with me have also claimed that Wikipedia has no authorities, and that we are all equal). Now, given that I have no idea what makes you qualified to come in like that, and that you didn't care to elaborate on how your own skills relate to this discussion (for instance, I have formal training in geodesy), I conclude that you likely haven't read the entire discussion: Petr Vaníček but also Vaníček analysis -- though Dicklyon is trying to separate those. Because, had you done so, you would now be in a position to add something actually useful, such as via your own editing of the page you seem to enjoy being the all-knowing judge and the all-mighty jury in. Again, I have never agreed it should be you who would be making the final call here -- please state the exact paragraph of the exact Wiki regulation that grants you the privilege for taking the exact action as you have taken. Otherwise, you are not being serious, because we already heard a third opinion on here (so yours is fourth, actually), who said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing (again, see both discussions). I mean, since we are all equal here, that third opinion is equally relevant but entirely opposing to yours. Or, do you believe your command of English to be better than both that person's and mine (which I doubt)? But, despite your contributing just some more arrogance, I'll keep my chin up until someone serious and acceptable to both parties comes along. --Geoeg 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue these editors are citing is a guideline called Wikipedia:Notability. It essentially says, emphasis mine: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

• His books do not show notability
• Recognition by groups he is affiliated with do not show notability.

In order to be notable, sources outside his field geodesy need to write about/discuss him. An example of someone notable is Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he's been written about or appeared in:

• Time magazine (Tyson was named one of Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2007.)
• People magazine (Tyson was voted the "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine in 2000.)
• Tyson is the 2007 host of PBS's science news magazine show, NOVA scienceNOW.
• Etc. (there's more but I think you get the point.) Anynobody 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Scientists are neither stars nor boxers (not this Tyson, of course). Accordingly, the only place for them to establish notability is within a circle of their peers. Otherwise, Time and People that are owned by certain interest and/or for-profit groups would be deciding which specific scientist has merits and which doesn't. Since Wikipedia does not have its own science editors, it seems like we have touched upon a fundamental issue of what "the top-ten" Wikipedia is or isn't: should a public vote decide on a scientist's merits? If it is a sin to answer that in negative, then I am a sinner. --Geoeg 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand scientists are neither stars nor boxers. We're talking notability on a large scale, not within the geophys community. To be a notable scientist one must do something that gets coverage in a wide forum. I was trying not to insult your intelligence before but Neil deGrasse Tyson barely meets what I would call a notable scientist (which is honestly much more notable than this guy Vanicek). When one compares several notable scientists they fall into tiers of notability with the public. The first tier are scientists everybody knows because they get mentioned often. I think it's safe to assume that most people have heard of:

• Albert Einstein
• Stephen Hawking
• Isaac Newton
• Carl Sagan

Then there are the less known, but nonetheless notable scientists like:

• Werner von Braun
• Marie Curie
• Michael Faraday
• Robert Oppenheimer
• Edward Teller

Followed by scientists who are new to the public eye, but really not that notable in the scientific community like:

• Neil Tyson

The bottom line is notability has nothing to do with merit. (If it did would there be a Paris Hilton article?) Petr Vaníček may be a great scientist but there is more to notability than being good at one's job. Anynobody 03:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your ideas. According to you then, we should delete the recipients list from the J. Tuzo Wilson Medal page? How about other such lists of distinguished scientists, such as the lists from the Geodesy page? And why not many, many others (tens of thousands, probably). I mean, given that not a single one of those men and women lives up to the Reader's Digest standards I believe you are proposing... Thanks, but I disagree. --Geoeg 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what he said. I recommend again that you read WP:NOTE, or at least the opening paragraph of it. The notability requirement is about what it takes to justify having an article, not about what it takes to be mentioned in an article. Many people, such as many of the Tuzo Wilson medal winners, are worth mentioning, even if they don't pass the threshold for having an article dedicated to them. Dicklyon 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It also says it is not set in stone. So how can you misinterpret something that can be interpreted in at least two ways? In any case, who decides which scientist belongs into "many"? By the way, what constitutes many? One would expect that all Medal laureates were born equal. Hence they are all listed. But you are free to prove to the contrary if you can of course. So far I have not seen any proof, just talk. Simply put, you can either consider all laureates notable, or you cannot consider any. --Geoeg 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Geoeg, I believe I informed you that I had asked for a third opinion at WP:3O (click where it's blue if you want to know what it means). When a neutral volunteer looks at a dispute between two editors and offers an opinion, with no particular prior knowledge or interest in the topic or the editors involved, you should be appreciative, not abusive. What several of us have been gently trying to tell you is that as a newbie you might not be well positioned to understand the principles and practices of wikipedia, and that therefore you might want to take advice from others who have been at it a while. Stop being so resistant, open up to learn how it works, and maybe you'll be able to become a productive contributor. Or keep fighting to get your own way and just get frustrated when you don't. It's up to you. Uncivil words to those who are trying to edit with you are unlikely to pay off for you; you could easily have been banned for life already for your earlier comment; I've seen it happen. Dicklyon 06:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC) /text bolded by Geoeg/

You are again (for a third time already) assuming things that are undoubtedly beyond your knowledge. As I said, you seem to be a judge-and-the-jury wannabe. (See my reply above, on why a public vote must not decide on a scientist's merit). But we have yet to see some valuable edits by you of the actual article, for I am tired of your unfounded assaults. You are just aggravated because I don't want to disclose my identity to you. Oh well, you'll have to live with it. (Nice photo by the way). And yes, feel free to contribute to the actual article and stop this soup opera on the Talk Pages. Imagine if you had spent just half of that time on editing the two articles, instead! --Geoeg 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's incompetence?

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)

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)

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)

Tag removals

I've removed request for sources and notability tags. Notability seems to be established (given the least-squares thingie... not being trite, I just don't remember the full name), and the article seems sourced. (If more sources are needed, maybe a {{FACT}} tag could be added to indicate what needs sourcing?). PS: Will copy this comment to the author's talk page. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So I guess my question is: is invention of the least-squares spectral analysis insufficient? If the analysis itself is notable enough for an article, I would think the mathematician who came up with it would be. I realize this skirts close to the 'Notability being inherited' issue, but I don't think it's quite the same, since academics' reputations derive almost entirely from the notability of their inventions. Alternatively, I'd argue he meets WP:PROF via criteria 3, 4, and 5. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are pretty clear that notability is not inherited. If the LSSA method is notable due to being widely described, but its inventor is only ever mentioned as its inventor, then he should be discussed in the LSSA article. To have his own article, he needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It's not a judgement about whether he was important, just about whether he is notable per guidelines of wikipedia. Furthermore, the LSSA method is not actually very widely known or used; it seems to have a strong following in the geodesy field, and it looks like a fine method, but nobody in signal processing seems to have ever heard of it. I was aware that a Fourier spectral analysis is a least-squares fit of sinusoidal functions to evenly spaced data, but it had never ocurred to me that the same idea could be easily done for unequally spaced data; it's obvious once pointed out, since any arbitrary set of functions can be so fitted. But as a method of spectrum estimation, it's just not well known; barely heard of is more like it. Dicklyon 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. What is older, a hen or an egg? Is Relativity more relevant than Einstein? What a bizarre way of looking at things; it's almost as if you would enjoy if most recipients of scientific medals remained anonymous. Why wouldn't all Tuzo Wilson medalists be regarded as notable? What else do you expect them to do before they are notable, save the world? Stop looking at science as a popularity contest and leave the science peers decide who is a notable scientist and who is not. We are all telling you here that your reading of the Wikipedia notability regulation is way too rigid. Next, you are wrong (again...) implying that geodesy is the field where the method has the strongest support. Actually, the field you meant is astronomy because astronomical datasets are inherently incomplete. (See ISI citation index if you don't believe me). Third, your sentence "nobody in signal processing seems to have ever heard of it" deserves no comment, yet it speaks volumes about you and the way you arrive at your shallow conclusions. Next, Fourier spectral analysis is not a least squares fit of anything. (If it was, it would be called the Least Squares Spectral Analysis, wouldn't it). While some authors credit Gauss for inventing least-squares (published 1809; invented two decades earlier), others say it was Legendre in 1805 (he never claimed it, something like Scargle in our case). But to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever credited Fourier for discovering it when he published his famous analysis paper in 1807 (Legendre was one of the reviewers), so you seem to be the first one, as you noticed something that even great Legendre had missed! Where do you keep all these weird ideas, in your back pocket? Finally, besides your funny "technical" explanations, your conclusion: "as a method of spectrum estimation, it's just not well known; barely heard of is more like it" is a mistake -- just look at astronomy titles citing Vanicek (and Lomb and Scargle for that matter), as well as many other fields mentioned in the article.

I now propose that you be banned from editing the two pages; I stopped counting your material errors when they turned ten in just a week.--Geoeg 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's concept of WP:notability has little to do with what a person has done; it's about whether they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is to prevent just such judgements about what is important. Dicklyon 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is noted. Dicklyon 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates your unwillingness/inability to consider arguments that oppose your own notions. Notability regulation does not say "independent reliable sources" are non-scientific. Stop ignoring scientific criteria of assigning merit to scientists. That is vandalism. --Geoeg 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bfigura: Why do I still see the tags, if you removed them? --Geoeg 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the history button. I restored the tags and explained why on his talk page, where I invited him to comment on the article talk page (here) if he disagreed or found references of the sort that the tags are calling for. Dicklyon 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored Bfigura's tag removal, as your view is in minority here. --Geoeg 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

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)

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)

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)

It's not a proposal. WP:3RR is policy, enforceable by blocking if necessary. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

COI tag removal

Given that Dicklyon was unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the author of the two pages actually does have conflict of interest, I propose that the COI tag be removed from this page too. --Geoeg 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you first appeal for someone who agrees that there is reasonable doubt about your COI, and then if such a person can be found, that person can propose removal of the COI tag? You'll probably want to review, comment, and appeal on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard section about you: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Geoeg. Dicklyon 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, at least three people so far have noted your arrogance. So bringing in a partial reinforcement that twists the facts to your instructions won't do us any good. Since I have better things to do, such as contributing to geodesy-related pages, I am not going to waste any more time on you. Therefore, since you cannot prove any of your numerous allegations, as the pages' author I decided to remove the COI tag. Feel free to complain. Cheers. --Geoeg 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dick Lyon is one of the least aggressive editors I've encountered on Wikipedia. — Athaenara ✉ 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As you may notice, my main concern was/is his edits of Petr Vaníček and Least-squares spectral analysis. --Geoeg 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In re "as the pages' author," please read the ownership of articles policy. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed any ownership. The reason I said it was to point out that he has no more rights here than me, despite his acting from position of power and authority wannabe. --Geoeg 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara wrote: edit comment, at 02:52 Petr Vaníček (diff; hist) . . (+29) . . Athaenara (Talk | contribs) (Subject probably passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Template:COI2 applies: COI editing by User:Geoeg has been extremely disruptive & aggressive. Everyone who reads the talk pages can see that I have not been extremely anything. The use of that sort of lingo and aggressive attitude actually exposes you as an aggressive person, because, in case you have not noticed, you just attacked me personally instead of debating the issue (the articles), see personal attack. As you did not offer valid arguments, and are using personal attacks instead, I am removing the tag. --Geoeg 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note what the {{COI2}} template actually says:

The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page.

Collaboration is actually aided by reading the content of the policies and guidelines which are linked in the template, which is one of the neutrality templates. — Athaenara ✉ 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding COI: sounds good, except it does not apply to me. Regarding Notability for biographies and Dicklyon's insisting on independent source, note that in addition to Wilson Medal already establishing notability for a geophysicist, I updated the Vanicek's Medal citation link from Craymer's homepage to Canadian Geophysical Union actual citation. So the tags are out. --Geoeg 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Crosspost

→ 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)

→ (Also crossposted to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg.) — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"That other place" is accessed via the blue link above after "crossposted from". Dicklyon 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have just visited the link -- yet another proof of your wild imagination. Your running around desperately looking for someone to support your imagination is pointless. I urge you to use your energy for good things, like contributing to the actual articles, not simply sack the articles and their authors. May I remind you that adding the tags actually mean you revert not only mine but also Bfigura's edits, since he decided they should go, and I seconded. Why do I have to repeat myself as to the fact that other people on the respective Talk pages have also seen your actions as, how should I put it, strange? --Geoeg 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Notability

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)

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)

So far, four people think tags are not needed. Dicklyon: as I told you above, Notability regulation does not say independent reliable sources must be non-scientific. That scientific peers bestow notability upon a scientist is common knowledge. So there is no need to change the tag text, as it has been working fine for years. It is more likely that your interpretation of regulations is incorrect. Concerning COI tag, I already told you to stop manipulating and imagining. In conclusion: can it really be that you are the only one here who can read? Gather five editors who support your view and you can put tag back on. --Geoeg 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dicklyon has just invented a new "rule": the difference between believe and strongly believe. Imaginative. But they have already said what they think. Now they have to repeat it? Who do you think you are, Wikipedia owner's son?????? --Geoeg 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Setting traps / misusing requests for ban

FYI: both Dicklyon and I were under 6-hour ban yesterday, at Dicklyon's request. I was wandering why he would request his own ban, until a while ago when I received the following threat from him, which shows that he is into business of setting traps around here. So everyone: in case I am gone from here for unexplained reasons, know I was banned and probably forever, thanks to his knowledge of various regulations and tricks he uses to set traps. --Geoeg 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FROM MY TALK PAGE:

==3RR warning again==

"Geoeg, we're in danger of violating the three revert rule again today. You've removed tags from Petr Vanicek 3 or 4 times already in the last 24 hours, and I've put them back 3 times. If you remove them again, I will report you again, only this time I'll be careful not to be in violation myself. So settle down, and see if any of those others you mention care to take your side in this. Dicklyon 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)"

Dicklyon: by your little game of setting traps (it turns out you have not even been away according to the many posts you created in the past two days), you just showed so much disrespect for the effort of an editor whose first Wiki article ended up featured on WP main page. Which happened not thanks to you, but despite you.--Geoeg 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct

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

Please note that you are more than welcome to discuss all the objections you and your friend Dicklyon might have -- here on the Talk page. But I must tell you that your POVs are a no-go. You two are in minority here (roughly, four to two), and the LSSA article has been already featured on WP main page -- despite one-partite war you two started with edit battles, setting ban traps, passing allegations or otherwise abusing or misinterpreting WP regulations. From now on, I won't allow any changes, not even minor ones made by you two to either of the two major articles I wrote. Those articles are already good enough so they certainly can survive without your POV. --Geoeg 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

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)

Good idea. After Geoeg is unblocked we'll try some discussion. Dicklyon 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this is such a good idea. Dicklyon's POV is now staying for one whole week as the official page. If you really wanted to be fair as you say, then you should have brought the page to its original state before the dispute and then lock it. The way you did it, it just looks like you took one side and that is not even the article author's side (the guy whose effort was recognized by featuring the related article on WP main page). So I think this lock should be lifted. --Geoeg 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Without commenting on the content, I don't think the admins care (nor should they) about which version is protected. (See m:The_Wrong_Version for a non-serious, but valid explanation). --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my comment above was addressed to Stifle, who locked the article. So I have no idea who you are talking to. Bfigura: in case you did not notice it so far: I do not care about non-serious explanations as they are by definition invalid, just like the many non-binding "regulations" that Dicklyon has been trying to misrepresent as obligatory. But when you actually go on and read them, they usually say something like "this is a recommendation only" or “this is a style issue that editors are free to choose” and so on. So spare me, will you. Thanks. --Geoeg 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)