User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV warning

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Support for evolution might be a bad title.
  • Evidence for evolution is is quite different than Support for evolution.
    • Support for evolution discusses at length how much support there is for evolution (and creationism) in the science community, in the religious community, the court system, the political support (in progress), the public support for each, and shows how this has been determined (surveys, estimates, the steve project, one day internet votes, proclamations by academies, press releases, court rulings, etc.).
    • Evidence for evolution is a description of scientific evidence, data, observations, experimental results, and reasoning for evolution. It would exist independent of creationism, because that is the data on which the theory lies.

Also, the reason for a separate article on this topic is that there is too much material for just one or two articles:

  • There are lots of articles on the controversy, but mainly on the creatioinism side. If one consults Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles which is by no means complete yet, one will see that there are a lot of articles on the evolution vs. creationism topic or associated with this topic. The Creation-evolution controversy article is just the start. The evolution article is mainly a science article. Its associated articles are mainly science articles. Almost nothing about the controversy. The creationism article and its associated articles are mainly associated with the conflict.
  • Clearly all the material associated with the controversy cannot fit in one or two articles. There is just too much. I am not anywhere near finished compiling an accounting.--Filll 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I might have no other option. I am going to try making the case that the title needs to be changed and a lot more material added to the creationism side. I might called it Support for creationism and evolution. My goal would be then to document how much heavier the support for creationism is in the public (at least in the US), and in politics (at least in the US). To make it seem less biased I will move those to the front of the article. I might invite some DI or creationism types to help me with material to add to the creationist side. Comments?--Filll 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely have appreciated a merger with evolution poll! I see that the name is the provocative thing, almost entirely. How about Nonuniform support for creationism across communities or Bias heterogeneity in creationism controversy or Different support levels for creationism or Demographics of creationism controversy or something along those lines. Orangemarlin and I (with some other input) have been producing a few articles in draft form, and this is the 2nd. It is really a fork off another one that is still in draft form, which is a general controversy article with a different tack from the present controversy article (and in fact could incorporate some of the sections of the current controversy article to make a cleaner topic divide because it really has two different major themes). I probably should have vetted it before launching it I see. Well live and learn. Any suggestions or assistance you can offer would be appreciated. I have not looked for a few hours but I suspect it is not good.--Filll 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What about something like "Measuring the creationism-evolution controversy"? "Creationism-evolution controversy metrics"? I realize now that I probably misread things badly. But I have not been here long, so this is to be expected.--Filll 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the "measuring", I am thinking of describing the different methods that have been used to gauge the level of support in different communities (polling, surveys, petitions, declarations of support by different organizations {religious, scientific, academic, government, educational, corporate, etc.}, court cases, laws, political speeches, and so on) and the results of these. Each side has some in their favor and some not:

  • polls on biologists-E dominates
  • polls on scientists-E still dominates but not as much
  • polls on the public-C dominates, but more ambiguous than at 1st glance
  • petitions-E dominates, but this is not independent of polls
  • declarations of support by scientific org-E dominates, again not indep.
  • declarations of support by academic, educ. orgs-E
  • declarations of support by corporations-surprisingly weak for E
  • declarations of support by politicians-C dominates
  • declarations of support by evang. religious-C dominates
  • declaration of support by mainstream religious-E dominates
  • court cases-E dominates, but it is far more ambiguous than people realize; there are huge loopholes in the court decisions
  • laws-E has slight edge, but C is making progress

So I believe that rewritten with this theme, it might be less offensive to the principles and rules here, which I am still learning. Comments?--Filll 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: Although C has about half of the public behind it, with E capturing maybe another 35% in a religious version of E, and 15% or so believe in an areligious version of E, a large fraction of the population that favors a religious version of E is not averse to including C in schools and passing legislation favoring C, etc. So although the support might be somewhat soft for C in some ways, in other ways the dominance of C is greater since most of the non-C public is amenable to allowing C in science and in schools etc.--Filll 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible revival of Evolution controversy

Hi there. In an effort to reduce the size of the Evolution article, I proposed that the misunderstandings section be merged into Creation-evolution controversy (see here). Even though the topic is already covered there to a degree, User:N6 raised a good point, that In practice, those who hold such misunderstandings are almost universally creationists, but the misunderstandings themselves aren't necessarily relevant to creationism.

I thought it might be possible to revive Evolution controversy as an article, discussing things like misunderstandings, objections and various controversies (social, creation, etc.) all in one article. So, the most obvious advantage is that any material relating to evolution and any sort of controversy can be spun off there without regard for its relevance to any other particular group or concept, reducing the size of the Evolution article and working towards it keeping its FA star.

This could also have a positive effect on the creation-evolution controversy page, reducing its size, possibly to the point of it being just another spinoff article from Evolution controversy. In turn, Christian creationism is then described as just one of several objections, as opposed to some sort of equal but opposing position as the current article title might confer.

Anyway, since you've been involved in the Creation-evolution controversy article for quite some time, including the AFD for the Evolution controversy article, I thought I'd run this by you before doing anything. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My rationale stems from that fact that we (that is, wikipedia :)) need to reduce the size of the Evolution page. Something needs to go, and I think it's better that some controversy and/or misunderstandings regarding evolution be reduced in size before we start removing information regarding evolution itself. I agree with you that most of the time (if not all of the time) the only reason there is a problem to begin with is creationism, and for that reason I thought it best to move any misunderstanding/controversy material to the creation-evolution page. Unfortunantly, it isn't that simple, as I pointed out above, re N6's comment. We can't simply refer anyone that has an issue with evolution to a creationism page, even if that is the likely cause of the issue.
So, the next best thing I thought was to move the material to a new page. This solves the problem of reducing the evolution page, but then, as you pointed out, we're back to the problem of a creationism 'issue' being described in a new page, when one already exists. It occured to me though, that we could deal with all of the creationist issues in one page, and move text from the evolution page to the same page, if we remove any reference to creationism in the title. So in summary, we
1. can freely move material from the evolution page regarding any misunderstandings, controversy, objections etc. and
2. don't have to call anyone that objects to evolution a creationist, and try to refer them to a creation page. That is, we don't have to 'generalize' the article, but we do avoid pigeonholing everyone that objects by generalizing the title.
You're probably right, the 'new' page will be very similar to the existing page, so this will end up being pretty close to a page move more than anything. I think there will be a little more work involved than that though, not so much from a writing perspective, mainly rearrangment of existing material which I'll be happy to work through.
Anyway, hopefully I haven't made that too long winded and I hope it makes sense. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I have two minor concerns though. The first being how much overlap there will be as the new article fleshes out, but that can be managed later, and whether an article on misunderstandings is really encyclopedic? I would have thought the above title better, but this will suffice. Cheers, and thanks for the help. darkliight[πalk] 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no problems. Thanks again for the help. darkliight[πalk] 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

I notice you've decided to add a threat regarding my reversion of your clear bias on the EVP article. You will, of course, have noticed that the reversions were indeed necessary because of your continued attempts to introduce a clear pro-sceptic bias into the article.

The article in question has been submitted for mediation since you have refused to listen to reason on its talk page. I therefore ask that you refrain from attempting to add more to the article until mediation has concluded.

Furthermore, do not attempt to threaten me again, either on my user page or elsewhere. Further threats will result in a formal complaint being made about your conduct. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only have you come back to my talk page and issued yet another threat but you do so on the basis that you have decided that I have violated the three revert rule, which it is clear to anyone that I have not. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on behaviour. You have also violated the policies on avoiding bias and only adding verifiable information.
Since your second threat toward me came after I had requested mediation to resolve the problems you caused on Electronic voice phenomenon I can only conclude that you have decided to attempt to threaten me because I have removed your bias and unverifiable statements from that article, thus you have made personal actions I took to preserve the neutrality of the EVP article. This is a further violation of the behavioural policy.
This is the last time I'm going to ask you to behave. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Regarding your article "Misunderstandings about evolution" I left the following message on the DYK suggestion page:

Let's not overlook this very good article. It's well-organized, clear, cited, illustrated, etc. Also, don't mistake this for POV. It's as non-POV as an article about nuclear fusion or whatever. I'm more of a history buff, but I welcome the variety that a science article like this brings to DYK.

The role you have chosen to take on Wikiepdia must be a frustrating one. Most of the subjects I deal with attract little controversy in comparision. Only hours ago, someone gave me good advice and I'll pass it along to you: don't let the small minds get you down. House of Scandal 14:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman

SA, I think you need to be a little more circumspect. It looks to me, as an interested onlooker, as if you are tending to capitalise on Ian's ArbCom restrictions. You are also baiting each other, which is unfair since Ian is under a restriction that you are not. I don't have a problem with the content you are editing, that seems fair to me (as a supporter of mainstream science, i.e. sharing your fundamental biases) but on Talk your interactions have strayed towards the unconstructive from time to time, as have Ian's. It is not easy to get away from an escalation in this sort of case, of course, but proposing and debating the merits of small and specific changes is one way to keep it focused on the content not the individual. I hope you feel this is a fair comment. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not supposed to be cryptic, I'm just saying that you should be careful not to overstep the mark. Ian's sanction has given you the upper hand in editing the various articles, you need to be careful that you can be seen to be scrupulously fair on those articles. Some of your interactions with Ian on Talk have been a bit heated. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying there is a problem, I'm saying that you need to be careful that there isn't one. Take it easy, that's all. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You got mail. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article misunderstandings about evolution, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you...

If you haven't figured it out already, Feline1 is a Velikovsky cultist. Look back in the history of the article roughly a year, and you will see that he/she will not let scientific evidence (from verifyable and reliables sources such a Philip Pliat) stand if it contradicts Velikovsky. Bubba73 (talk), 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I get a say in this, Bubba73? I'm not a "Velikovsky cultist", I'm not a "he/she", and I'm not intent on preventing scientific evidence stand if it contradicts Velikovsky. (See for example, my piece at http://p218.ezboard.com/fsis60378frm2.showMessage?topicID=64.topic explaining why Velikovksy's claims re: the atmosphere of Mars were a load of old rubbish). Now do please behave.--feline1 11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are the one who removes scientific material from verifiable and reliable sources because it shows Velikobvsky to be wrong. (i.e "Pliat must go") Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Bubba73, unless you wish to appear wilfully mendacious, I suggest you refresh your memory on Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky, as all this was discussed with you there at the time. You had copy-pasted whole a large chunk of Plait's material into the article. I did not remove it "because it shows Velikovsky to be wrong". (Why would I then also add statements to the article such as "Put most concisely, it can be said that Velikovsky's ideas have been wholly rejected by mainstream academia, often vociferously as Velikovsky's work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, Velikovsky's unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) is viewed by scholars as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions."?? I explained to you that copy-pasting this much Plait was likely a copyright violation. Wikipedia was also had warning that the article was already too long, and you'd pasted in a couple of extra screenfuls, which wasn't helping that situation! I also explained that Plait was very much a tertiary source in the nearly-60-year-old Velikovsky Affair, with 'nothing' new to say against V. that had not already been published by others such as Shapley and Sagan, who were already quoted in the article - moreover, I recall noticing some quite definate errors/strawmen in the summary of Velikovsky's ideas by Plait that you'd pasted in. Since that time, Leroy Ellenberger has suggested to me that Plait was the first to discus the effect Velikovsky's planetary scenario would've had on the moon's orbit [to be honest, I seem to recall Harvard astronomers of the 50s making the same protest, so I'm doubtful that Plait has priority here either]. But furthermore, the purpose of the Immanuel Velikovsky article is not to "critique" his ideas in a pedagogic, it is primarily biographical and describing the notable controversy that ensued. Mention of Plait might be best added to the Worlds in Collision article, since this focuses on the specific planetary castrophism ideas, which Plait dealt with (note that these were probably only about 20% of V's output).--feline1 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That was before the Worlds in Collision article existed. And I didn't copy-paste a large chunk of Plait in there, I either summarized it from his book or quoted him with credit. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay.

Thanks for the advice. Xiner (talk, email) 01:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If "wikidiot" isn't vandalism it's a personal attack. Art LaPella 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I do not understand

What is your position about Support for evolution?

  • Do you believe that there is no support for evolution?
  • do you believe there is no controversy?
  • do you believe that the relative levels of support for evolution in different communities is not of interest in discussions between scientists and creationists?
  • Do you believe that the other 25 people that disagreed with your position were mistaken somehow?

I am just mystified, to be honest. Surely this is some kind of honest mistake.--Filll 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stecchini

I share you frustration with the article, but it doesnt necessarily mean the thing to do is get rid of it. he is after all a notable crank. DGG 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral action

Do you not realize you are going against consensus? Do you not realize you might get yourself in trouble by these kinds of actions? This is not reasonable to do without consensus and it is asking for trouble. Please do not act like this.--Filll 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ScienceApologist - Hey, I thought there was a discussion in progress! Could you please pay a visit to Support for evolution (or wherever it's now gone) and discuss the major change you think should be made, before just going ahead and doing it? Maybe it's a good idea - but I think the least you should do is discuss it first! Now, how do I revert all thoise changes ...? (Actually, I won't do that without discussion) Snalwibma 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SA, the least you could do is fix the trail of double redirects. See my post on Filll's talk; these articles need organizing and consolidating. But it's hard to figure out what goes where if things keep moving and redirecting to new targets. Discuss first, please? Opabinia regalis 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the last of them this morning. All this moving and redirecting is particularly confusing for people looking for the relevant AfDs. FWIW, though, I agree with your general point on the title. Opabinia regalis 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stecchini

Secrets of the Great Pyramid, a stupid but influential book, his co-ed of Velikowsky Affair, cf the refs I added. 3rd. (that is actually a peer reviewed architecture journal, now publ. by Birkhauser & in the major math & architecture indexes) the 4th is not peer-reviewed, but seems not fringe.

I left out dozens in lists &c and in truely fringe publ. I also left out everything in Italian, which I can decioher, but barely. or anything about Velikowsky. And I didn't check for this orgi. papers & links to them, in a real library. I am not sure that such level of detail is worth getting.

DGG 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediumship

Is Mediumship a recognized scientific phenomena? --- LuckyLouie 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSE and JSE

Would it be possible for you to have a chat to the editors over at Quackwatch and discuss why the JSE isn't peer reviewed in the sense that other journals are? There seems to be a couple of editors who don't quite understand why this is important and who are biasing the article to favour information published in the JSE. Please note that I am only logged on for today and due to a family tragedy will be offline for a couple of weeks (hopefully). So if you don't see me on, that's why. Many Thanks Shot info 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that again new editors are reverted due to a now obsolete "consensus". Hopefully by breaking out the points, real discussion can be entered into. Shot info 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] essence

Thanks for kindly starting my user page. If I were Jewish, would you have placed a gold arm band there too? TheDoctorIsIn 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion

Is there any way I can help you to find a compromise in your ongoing revert war? --Guinnog 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3+ RR Warning

Let me point out Wiki rules on edit reversion and "edit warring". Basically you are not to exceed 3 reverts per day, or that administrators can block you. You were already over yesterday, 8RR by my count. Sometimes enforcement gets slack, but relying on that would be a self-defeating habit. I would advise using the Talk page more to make your points to other editors when this occurs. I do appreciate that things cooled down and came into focus in your more recent edits. However with high traffic volume, misunderstandings and other phenomena seem to proliferate, so pls be aware. I came back from dinner last night, realized what had happened (I felt dead sure you were not GB, otherwise...), and acted to put a stop to that; this is note is a follow up.--I'clast 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be helpful, pointing out the situation, not "name calling". 3RR is not about "good faith", although "bad faith" *can* get a discount on 3RR. I think you have achieved a thorough review of the Kauffman section. Pace.--I'clast 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been reported for 3RR over Quackwatch. I don't think the report is correct, but its close, so please be careful. Consider WP:1RR William M. Connolley 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan

Apparently you were involved in a dispute about the article on this `Independent Researcher'. There is an editor complaining about the article being biased, only he seems to be blocked from editing it. What I wanted to know is, should the article not just be deleted altogether? It seems to be a hotbed of contention, and this guy isn't really very famous or important. I don't know what the criteria for `Independent Researchers' being included are, but surely the `Prof test' is applicable. Which this guy seems to fail. Let me know what you think. You obviously have a better feeling for the situation than I do. Rosenkreuz 16:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The National Council Against Health Fraud

I thought you might like to take a look at this article. I began removing less notable critics. Hope to see you there. GigiButterfly 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Afshar Experiment Dispute

  • Dear ScienceApologist, I have very little time to spend on this article, however, thank you very much for the offer to settle the dispute. I have nothing to tell Danko, and will separately discuss his edits. For now, the sentence "This refutation of Afshar's claims falls short on its aim since it starts from flawed assumption of which way information at first place." in the "Specific Critiques" section should be removed as utter OR. There is NO peer-reviewed publication that supports this assumption. The only legitimate Ref. for the "No WWI without wires" is that of Prof. Qureshi who has submitted his work to a peer-reviewed Journal. I can directly address Prof. Qureshi here, however, I'd rather respond to him by the request of the Journal's editor, who has requested me to act as one the referees for the paper. Briefly, Qureshi should be able to write the wavefunctions for each image as a 50/50 mixture of the two original wavefunctions emerging from the two pinholes. If he shows that, then his hypothesis would be supported by QM formalism. My suggestion to Prof. Qureshi is to avoid making emotional statements either here or any other public forum. The fact that his argument can be shown to erroneous (this fact supported by Prof.s Wheeler, Unruh, Drezet, Hardy, Greenberger, etc., as well as myself) should be sufficient due diligence on his part to refrain from further subjective statements until the results of the peer-review process have been sent to him. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please check your e-mail. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I made a small post to User talk:Tabish q re this experiment; it draws an analogy to diffraction experiments in water waves, which I hope might clarify what's "quantum" about this, and what's classical. linas 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic voice phenomenon

Hi...I've managed to gain consensus (LuckyLouie, Martinphi, Perfectblue, Zoe.r) in support of the following opening for the EVP article:

  • Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[1][2][3] As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals. [4]
  • According to researcher Alexander MacRae, EVP is defined as any anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording[5][6] [2] that are discovered upon playback, but were not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which do not appear to originate from any local source.[3] EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

The above represents a lot of negotiation and a few minor concessions among disputing parties, but I feel it is fair and accurate, representing the objectives of both NPOV and skeptical and proponent views. While it's not "ideal", I think it's as good as we're going to get without major, ongoing strife. I'd like you to consider acknowledging your support for this version - in order that we may end the edit wars and stabilize the article. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, --- LuckyLouie 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am naive, I was hoping to mitigate the continual reverting/edit war, but it seems to be continuing anew. Thank you for taking the time to set down a point by point explanation and justification for your edits. Hopefully this level of detail focus will prompt constructive and civil discussion. --- LuckyLouie 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, a general consensus has been reached about the content of the summary. Each point of your point-by-point analysis has, I believe, already been discussed previously on the discussion page. Thus, while your concerns are to be considered, the summary should remain with the consensus version while full consensus is reached. Otherwise, we can go to mediation. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VANITY

Jtlyk, the shorthand WP:VANITY is no longer in use, and should be replaced with WP:COI. ~ trialsanderrors 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment

Re: Discussion of premise of Level of Support article

I have been thinking about this. The first sentence of the Level of support for evolution article is the premise of the article. The article is very well researched and written. However, if the first sentence cannot be cited, the inclusion of the article on wikipedia is challengable on grounds that it is either original research or a soap-box or both. Please see the above link for more information, and please chime in. I know Filll put a lot of work into the article, and I hate to do this to him after he gave me a barnstar, but every "save page" box has the warning that it can and probably will be edited mercilessly. StudyAndBeWise 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the top of this talk page, ScienceApologist is on a Wikibreak. Art LaPella 05:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more EVP

I know you're on wikibreak, but on the outside chance you stop by I thought you should know that there are some suggested proposals for a rewrite of the EVP intro at Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/sandbox. If you get a chance, your input and suggestions would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to appeal to Jimbo

Just thought you would like to know that User:Iantresman is appealing the recent pseudoscience arbitration case to Jimbo. (He tried to launch an appeal with the ArbCom, but they refused to consider it--referring him to Jimbo instead). In addition, in light of the recent User:Essjay fiasco, he is accusing you of falsification of credentials, or something like that. The particular link he cited is on a deleted page and thus not visible by me.

Oh, he also thinks you vandalized his website.

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Arbcom Appeal for the details. While I expect that Jimbo isn't likely to be sympatetic to Ian, I thought you should know.

I'll also email you this, as you are indicating that you are off-Wiki.

--EngineerScotty 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've weighed in there as well. It's a big mistake for User:Iantresman to have challenged your credentials. If anything, it will only serve to underscore once more why it's so vital that Wikipedia support your continued involvement here.Proabivouac 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No doubt, we were to ask some "professors", some would say there is a big difference between them and mere "instructors".:) Still, I was only trying to be studiously neutral and accurate: the main point is that your credentials are hardly phony, you are indeed a mainstream expert, in everyday usage there is no problem with calling you a "professor," and Iantresman's attempt to "Essjay" you is a pathetic joke. And, Wikipedia needs more Science Apologists. So please, keep up the good work.Proabivouac 11:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject updates

  • I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] IP edits

Are the recent IP edits at Electronic voice phenomenon and its talk page from you? You have clarified that you have used those two IP addresses in the past, and that edits after that clarification aren't from you, but it would be good if you could clarify if you made some or all of those IP edits. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Warning

Warning Putting warnings on talk pages which give orders to other editors is a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:POINT and a bunch of other rules. Please refrain from doing such things. Even ArbCom has noted, on multiple occasions, your POV and uncivil behavior. Please cease this. Martinphi
I don't know - his warning seemed pretty reasonable. Adding Cat:Science to pseudoscience is nonsense. Guettarda 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup.Proabivouac 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding Cat:pseudoscience without a citation or discussion is also wrong. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience it is not wrong if it is obvious pseudoscience (which the subjects we are dealing with obviously are). --ScienceApologist 08:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This was applied to Time Cube, and that is the threshold for "obvious." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto, psychic-related aritlces represent just "generally considered pseudoscience" and so still may rightly be categorized as such. --ScienceApologist 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
SA, I personally think that pseudoscience isn't really appropriate for parapsychology as it is a legit branch of psychology, even though a lot (if not all) of it's subject/research matter is pseudoscience. Hence I think we shouldn't add it to the cat, following the example of psychology. Note that I do agree that psi, psychic, telepathy and other examples of parapsychological research do belong in pseudoscience only as these are the actual fields (per se) of pseudoscience (IMHO). Upshot is, I think your placement of the cat possibly needs reconsideration. Shot info 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Per "generally considered pseudoscience", parapsychology seems to fit very well with pseudoscience. It has a following, but it is not accepted by the scientific community in general. Actually, it's noteworthy that some of the strongest supporters of parapsychology, including the PEAR project at Princeton (listed as a reference on that page) have disbanded.
Put another way: if all of a subject's research is pseudoscience, the subject should be considered pseudoscience. Alchemy is pseudoscience, while nuclear physics is not; the research in alchemy was all pseudoscience, while the research in nuclear physics was real science. It may well be that, someday, some branch of science comes along and discovers what parapsychology practitioners were seeking. For now, parapsychology seems to rest pretty firmly in the territory of pseudoscience. SA, sorry for invading your talk page. Antelan talk 02:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Antelan, your input would be appreciated at Talk:Parapsychology#Category straw poll. Thanks. --Minderbinder 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great new page!

Alternative physics. Richard1968 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General time dilation

Hi Joshua, Why do you think that the page with that title shouldn't be in Wikipedia if this may actually be the reason why we see the Hubble redshift as confirmed by Supernova Project? I didn't know that the first time I created this page (assuming it was me). Just recently Ned Wright supplied me with the data and it turned out that GR predictions as to the value of acceleration of expansion of the universe are within one sigma which for a theory that does not have any adjustible parameters is a big success as you must know. So if GR is so successful, why not let the readers of Wikipedia to know that some of Wikipedia pages tell a true story even if it is not the exact purpose of encyclopedia in your opinion? Why do you think that suppressing truth is even better? Jim 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A random opinion of SA

Many times have they been warned, but it seems like those warnings have little effect.

Why keep a trouble-maker around? Just because they're "useful" to the majority? Bah.

[edit] Arbitration on Paranormal Topics ?!

What is going on ?! 65.163.113.145 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran and Speed of Light

ScienceApologist, this article may be beneath you, but as it does claim to be about physics...There is also The relation between Islam and Science. Fortunately the sections addressing the Big Bang etc. are gone,[1] shame about the rest.Proabivouac 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Village Pump - Fringe and Minority Scientific Views

There appears to be some confusion here. [2] If you have in depth familiarity with the recent Arbcom decision on psuedoscience you may wish to illuminate. LuckyLouie 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)