QUOTE(Krimpet @ Tue 15th December 2009, 4:08am)
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Mon 14th December 2009, 5:56am)
On the other hand he can get on with writing his Ph.D. dissertation, from which wikipedia can only have been a distraction.
With the recent
public release of
creationist scholar Kent Hovind's own doctoral dissertation, it's clear he has a high standard to strive for. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)
That depends on the university, the department and the supervisor amongst other things. There doesn't seem to be a problem with Ottava's university, even if it's not that well-known. Ottava may have been irritating and argumentative on wikipedia but he has shown extraordinary dedication in article writing. Not quite the same thing as originality, of course.
Anyway Risker has added a remedy to the proposed decision that allows a return to editing once he accepts that there have been problems with his behaviour.
BTW Hovind seems to be very confused about the third century BC (300 BC - 201 BC).
This post has been edited by Mathsci: