User talk:Anthere/ban

Let's ban Anthere because she's been in an edit war, and no respectable wikipedian has ever been in an edit war! Yeah! Also, she's using a pseudonym, and no respectable wikipedian uses a pseudonym! Yeah! Koyaanis Qatsi 04:24 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. I think it only fair to note that her English language skills are less than "perfect". For this offense alone, she should be not only banned but drawn and quartered, and then we should mince the quarters into little bits which should be fed to the Trolls we keep locked up in the dungeon, and then we could...

Actually, on second thought, let's not ban Anthere, because it would be stupid to do so given how she's a valuable contributor and not a vandal or troll. --Dante Alighieri 05:03 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As a reminder for our gentle readers, no one has said anything about banning Anthere except RK, who has very much harmed any case he may have by such ad-hominem attacks. As long as this is a conflict of personality, it is not solvable except by shouting until one or all participants are booted out to give the rest of Wikipedia some peace. That's why we seek to achieve a state of WikiLove -- we (all of us!) need to calm down and look rationally at the situation when the editing gets hot.

What precisely is the nature of the dispute? Is "bad information" being added? Is "good information" being removed? Or is good information being made difficult to find? Is it being "badly organized"? Does the disputed text seem to favor some point of view unwarrantedly? What, specifically, shows this? What changes would solve it?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the other person is not a troll, a vandal, a spoiler, whatever. Assume that they, like you, have the oh-so-best of intentions, and ask what is the difference between their approach and your approach. Ask what is wrong with their approach. Ask what is right with their approach. Ask what is wrong with your own approach. (It could happen! Even I am wrong sometimes. From time to time.) Remember that no human being really has a neutral point of view, and that even our best efforts are only approximations, which to achieve fullness require a give-and-take with others with different points of view. --Brion 06:15 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Here are the last arguments

Anthere, stop this harassment and trolling. You may not unilaterally disrupt our Biology articles. I have tried to work with you before, but you refused to discuss anything; you just kept on using reversions. And now you doing this unfriendly activity again? No talk? No discussion? No care about how thousands of other English speakers and scientists use these terms? For shame. We have already explained why these naming changes were being made. In fact, were you a competant English speaker, you already would have known why. English speakers DO NOT use the bizarre terminology that alone use. You can't rewrite every Wikipedia entry on this subject to use a non-existent terminology. This has already been explained to you before by me and by others, but you refuse to even comment on this point. Now you again engage in reversions to force the rest of thr world to go by you? Sorry, lady, but Wikipedia doesn't work that. English speakers do NOT use the terms you use, plain and simple. I have read books on this subject, article on the subject, and did Google searches over hundreds of websites...and your claims are FALSE. No one uses your terminology, and insiting on it only confuses English speaking Wikipedia readers. This isn't the French Wikipedia, its the English one. If you don't like, it go elsewhere. But your disrutpive behaviour, your reversions, and your refusal to even admit that English speakers *might* be misled by your private terminology only proves that you are not a team player. Go troll elsewere. RK 01:41 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anthere, stop this harassment and trolling.

I am neither harassing you, nor trolling

You may not unilaterally disrupt our Biology articles.

our is "our". That means yours, mine and everyone else.

I have tried to work with you before, but you refused to discuss anything; you just kept on using reversions. And now you doing this unfriendly activity again? No talk? No discussion?

I explained my reversion in the talk page. You didnot explain your move. let's keep thing into the right point.

No care about how thousands of other English speakers and scientists use these terms? For shame.

Yes. I care about users. This is precisely why I did the reversion. You are just confusing theory and hypothesis. And just censoring the terminology hypothesis, where it is very obvious it is all over the net. Please type "gaia hypothesis" before doing deletions. Please also acknowledge the fact Lovelock has initially written an hypothesis, not a theory, and than both are different. I also note that you obviously don't know the subject very well, since you change the homeostatic article, indicating the theory was , when in reality the theory is homeorhetic and the hypothesis homeostatic. Please try to keep to stick to the topics you know more.

We have already explained why these naming changes were being made. In fact, were you a competant English speaker, you already would have known why. English speakers DO NOT use the bizarre terminology that alone use.

Again, you attack me on my capacity of using english ? You claim "Gaia hypothesis" is a term that doesnot exist and that I invented ? But really, how do you want me to give any credibility in what you say and write ???

You can't rewrite every Wikipedia entry on this subject to use a non-existent terminology. This has already been explained to you before by me and by others, but you refuse to even comment on this point.

this has been explained by you and you only. Not any other one.

Now you again engage in reversions to force the rest of thr world to go by you? Sorry, lady, but Wikipedia doesn't work that.

that is gonna work that work sorry, because clearly you are in a destructive pattern, and I won't let you damage our wikipedia again.

English speakers do NOT use the terms you use, plain and simple. I have read books on this subject, article on the subject, and did Google searches over hundreds of websites...and your claims are FALSE. No one uses your terminology, and insiting on it only confuses English speaking Wikipedia readers.

Yes, of course, no one use the "Gaia Hypothesis" term. This is enough. You are having a deep problem with your sources.

This isn't the French Wikipedia, its the English one. If you don't like, it go elsewhere. But your disrutpive behaviour, your reversions, and your refusal to even admit that English speakers *might* be misled by your private terminology only proves that you are not a team player. Go troll elsewere. RK 01:41 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is precisely the LAST time I talk to you here on this topic. User:anthere

(which is why I moved everything here)

WikiLove, anthere :) Martin 13:20 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's best wishes, not a demand ;-) Martin 09:43 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Anthere's English is not fine. It's more than fine.

Yes, she occasionally makes mistakes, but they're easily fixed (and if they're not, by most people, they're probably on their way to become a new dialect!). And is there anybody whose English is perfect? Bush? (Ok, he's a great guy, but apparently his Harvard years didn't really include one particular course.)

Her able command of English is obviously the result of years of reading English text, formal and informal (hence a solid grasp of the idioms), and probably some speech interaction as well.

Ant, please just ignore that person's comment on your English ability. There's no truth in it at all. He's just picking on you 'cos you're French, like Americans pick on us because we're Canadians, because there's that something nice about our two nations they'll never possess. :-D

Despite the grand knowledge possessed by the large population of France, we only have two active French contributors: Ant and Tarquin. And if Ant subconsciously drifts away because a baseless accusation, we'd be left alone with Tarquin -- who will then bite off our scalps due to solitude.

--Menchi 13:08 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

actually, I think there are other french contributors around. -- Tarquin 08:43 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yep, the French Wikipedian list shows like a dozen, but about only 5 I have encountered, and none other reached the same degree of participation you two have. --Menchi 15:55 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I cannot resist the temptation to point out the irony in the spelling error present in In fact, were you a competant English speaker, you already would have known why..

RK, how many langauges do you know as well as Anthere knows English? Just one? Hmm.

Kat 22:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Peace and love ;D Alvaro 00:49 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Anthere, I just read RK's newest comments on your "vandalism", "mental illness" and "pathological lying". Do not take him serious, he has insulted almost everyone on Wikipedia in this way, and now it is you. I hope, that this ban page will go away soon and that you won't be discouraged by this ridiculous person. Keep on the good work -- Cordyph 14:12 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

thanks Cordyph

---

Anthere, please stop this. You really have a serious problem, and you need to confront it. Stop your harassment, please. This is not a joke. RK

---

I don't see anyone harassing anyone except this RK character. Anthere responded specifically and verifiably to each baseless accusation. RK responds by ignoring all her well-reasoned replies, and accusing her of harassment??!! RK you are looking worse every minute.

Love and Peace, Steverapaport 18:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here and no nothing about the topic. But from what I have read RK seems to be one in the wrong in his treatment of Anthere. Yes there are problems sometimes with people whose english is not perfect (I can think of person with poor english who made some articles unreadable. But even if that was the case with Anthere (and I don't know of any evidence) I have seen absolutely nothing to justify her being called a troll and not one item to justify the creation of a 'let's ban' page. RK, if you have evidence not rhetoric please show it. In the meantime please show Anthere the respect she so obviously deserves as a genuine wikipedian. FearÉIREANN 19:04 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)