I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a Wikibreak until the new year. I wrote a satire piece on my talk page that someone decided was a criminal threat. Now the police have called me... laughing. Instead of engaging in this silliness, I'm going to disengage.

Peace love and popcorn,

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have filed a Checkuser request which lists you, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist (6th case). --Elonka 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See also above #Checkuser)

I notice that yesterday, you said you would take a break until the new year. However, it seems that instead of taking a break from Wikipedia entirely, you are simply switching to editing anonymously, while logged out. This user is almost certainly you, or echoing your wish of edits, and it's not the first time something like this has caused concerns.

In one of the arb cases involving you, you were specifically directed to use only one account. In in another more recent case, you were cautioned to abide by the spirit of rulings, and not the letter. The spirit of the restrictions is that you must edit in such a way as to allow easy communal scrutiny of your edits (WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY), given past concerns. While I don't see evidence of clear abusive IP editing, I do notice that today you were using IP edits to replicate edits (performing a controversial merge), which had been rejected by others when you proposed the merge as ScienceApologist.

Given your past history, the use of logged-out editing is not okay. You need to take care to be logged in when you edit, and correct yourself quickly if not. RFAR/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and RFAR/Pseudoscience contain requirements to use one account (usually taken to mean "and not IPs"), and a discretionary sanction where any administrator may impose a sanction if the editor repeatedly does not follow "any expected standards of behavior". WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY and the case requirement both add up to "not editing via IPs and an account" being an expected standard. The remedy allows for "restrictions on... other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project".

As such, please note the following restriction (which shouldn't actually impact any of your editing but will help others). I am told you've been posted a link to the relevant decision at a previous time:

You are not to edit in the topic area of pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, or on pseudoscience-related topics, without logging in using the agreed user account, and if you do make any edits as an IP, they should be promptly signed (or otherwise confirmed) with your account. An occasional accidental lapse may be forgiven, but if you continue to edit these areas as an IP editor, in a way that suggests deliberate carelessness or indifference about logging in, other blocks may be imposed (on both the IP(s) and your main account).

This restriction is in effect indefinitely. If you disagree with the restriction, you may appeal it at Arbitration Enforcement or directly to the Arbitration Committee, as you know. Logged here and here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may find this interesting.--Asdfg12345 03:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, NPOV works both ways. I know you're big on the Big Bang, but the article uses weasel words and presents hypotheses as facts. Not NPOV. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For fighting pseudoscientific crap with deadly efficiency.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear hear. Greg L (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should've given you one of those a long time ago. Now I'll just chime in with another 'hear hear!' kwami (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of post is why you continue to get so much support on Wikipedia. Incisive, eloquent, and to the point. — BillC ^talk 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editing again. Merry Christmas! Verbal chat 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]