User talk:SteveBaker

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

Archives

/archive1 - Prior to Dec 10th 2006
/archive2 - Prior to Feb 7th 2007
/archive3 - Prior to May 1st 2007
/archive4 - Prior to May 24th 2007
/archive5 - Prior to Aug 9th 2007
/archive6 - Prior to Nov 2nd 2007
/archive7 - Prior to Nov 27th 2007

ignoring the point is only more rude.

The more i learn about wikipedia's policies, the more I understand how many of them you broke when dealing with me. Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop

Hi, noticed your comment today in this workshop - you probably didn't realise the workshop is no longer active, as that arbitration case is now closed. I agree, it does seem a little unfair to me that the Rational Skeptic project didn't warn any new members of the sanctions editors would face if they joined their group. However you'd probably be best directing your complaints at the Rational Skeptic project directly.--feline1 (talk)10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy those ArbCom pages are REALLY unclear. I can't even figure out what the final decision was - it looks maybe like they took sanctions against the two trouble-makers and left everyone else alone (which is essentially what I advocated). Shouldn't there be a big banner at the top that says "THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED, THE RESULT WAS <such and such>" ?? SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they can be a bit confusing to the uninitiated. The Rational Skeptic project is full to the gills of expert wikilawyerers though ;0) so for them to plead ignornance of the ArbComm verdict would strain credence...--feline1 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]