User talk:Nealparr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Nealparr is elsewhere for now, but will check his talk page now and then. |
 |
|
| Wikipedia Ads | file info – show another – #122 |
Contents |
[edit] Unfortunate
I find this very disheartening. Take some time, if you need it, but I do hope you return. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the concern. Just retiring from that article (probably for awhile) and taking a break from editing as a whole to get some real life work done. After working there so long, it's probably best to get some fresh eyes on the subject. Plus after multiple debates (at least one every month or two) I'm just repeating myself to new editors anyway : ) Someone else can do that. Thanks again. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rivista di Biologia
Rivista di Biologia is a grossly unreliable source. As the article on its editor Giuseppe Sermonti states:
Since 1979, Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world (founded in 1919), which, prior to Sermonti's assumption of the role of Chief Editor was considered to be respectable journal. Since Sermonti took over, however, it has published papers which would be regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community, particularly articles by creationists such as Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, as well as articles by Morphogenetic field advocate Rupert Sheldrake and holistic scientist Mae-Wan Ho.[2] History and Philosophy of Science professor John M. Lynch, says that Rivista di Biologia largely publishes only research outside the general scientific consensus. Lynch said of Rivista: "While there may be interesting ideas here, there is no indication that they represent mainstream thought in biology. And while this might be an 'internationally respected biology journal' within certain (anti-Darwinian) communities, it cannot be considered so among the majority." and "the influence of Rivista, we see that - as one would expect from the above - the journal is of negligible importance at best ... in the case of Rivista could not reasonable be called 'internationally respected'."[3]
Andrea Bottaro, University of Rochester Medical Center, reproduced on the National Center for Science Education website:[1]
Much of the newfound enthusiasm is, I suspect, due to his editorship of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, a third-tier but historical and, importantly, ISI-indexed biology journal which he has turned into a haven for all sorts of creationist and anti-Darwinian material. Sermonti’s Rivista provides “intelligent design” advocates a much-needed back door to the “mainstream scientific literature” without the inconvenience of proper peer-review — a unique opportunity that they have already started to exploit.
The section on 'Experimental test of the formative causation hypothesis' was sourced almost entirely to this unreliable source, and so was removed. HrafnTalkStalk 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cool down
Well, I'm finished balling him out. I just think that these editors who make the environment bad for the rest of us need to be confronted -much earlier-, and then isolated so that they do not entirly spoil the wiki envirnoment. Basically, don't feed the trolls. I'm not going to respond to him any more on the issue of his being nasty to me and others, as he has not become any wiser. So you can come back. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think any progress will be made on that article without pulling teeth. It doesn't have much to do with any particular editor, just too many strong opinions for my Wikipedia:WikiSloth editing habits. I'll check in now and then, but I'll hold off trying to improve the article for now. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
