User talk:Jefffire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Characterization of Ig Nobel Prize

Hello, Jefffire. What a coincidence. I went to that section of the article with the intention of deleting "generally uncoveted" for reasons of POV and saw that you had done so earlier today.

I'm curious, though, why you left in the innacurate characterization of the Ig Nobel as "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced" and deleted the accurate characterization. I wasn't able to find that characterization of the Ig Nobel on the Ig Nobel web site. And when I checked the citations, they did indeed characterize it in those words, but themselves gave no citation for that wording. On the other hand, the wording that I had inserted was directly from the Ig Nobel web site. TimidGuy 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain: I had left in place what I felt was an inaccurate characterization because I didn't want to provoke the editor who had inserted it. I had simply added the quote from the Ig Nobel web site. If you don't mind, I'll delete the "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced" and more briefly reference the Ig Nobel site.

By the way, your earlier feedback on the article was quite helpful, and gave me good direction in regard to sourcing.TimidGuy 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, remove that part. Jefffire 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.TimidGuy 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I had the same idea regarding the placement of the Canter and Ernst study.Thanks for relocating it. And had intended to delete the "relaxation" paragraph left over from an earlier version, so thanks for doing that, too. Regarding the deletion in the Fees section, Invincible America is actually a bona fide web site making the offer that was noted. But I'm not sure it's useful to include this information in the article. In fact, it almost seems like this whole section could be deleted. I greatly condensed the Adverse Effects section per your earlier suggestion on the Talk page, and reanamed it.TimidGuy 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, when you wrote "spam" my brain heard "vandalism." Yes, I can agree it was spam. TimidGuy 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think we should crack down on the reliability ... red rain

Ey Up Jefffire,

That's Yorkshire for 'hi'. While I'd agree in principle, it's a bit tricky to achieve with NPOV. But it might also be a bit tricky without potentially damaging the tourism trade in Kerala. Discounting the spacedust, the possibilities are trentepohlia, airborne sand, or industrial pollution.

Equally, Chandra Wickramasinghe seems both to have something of a following and, given that two BBC horizon programmes were made around his work, pandemics and panspermia, the ear of some bits of the media. His colleague, Milton Wainwright, seems to have bowed out from the red rain business; though he was at the recent conference that Wickramasinghe hosted at Cardiff.

It's difficult to know what Wickramasinghe's exit strategy is - if he has one. He might genuinely believe that he has samples of spacedust in his lab. And without access to samples (Louis wouldn't provide them to a geoscientist who asked years ago, and neither will Wainwright release any or any results of chromatography) it's difficult to see how the issue can ever be properly grounded.

In this sort of situation, no astro-scientist is likely to want to comment for fear of having their reputation tarnished.

Maybe the whole thing will gently fade... In any even there seem to have been huge moves towards combatting pollution in Kerala in the last few years, though it's a pity to note that Endosulphan is being used again despite being banned in many other places.

Best regards Davy p 00:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

With apologies I don't have much time to dedicate to this currently, but I can offer the following sugestions: The issue divides into two main areas; Wheather the particles are alive, and whether the particles are terrestrial. To address each it's important to stick to only rigourus journals for scientific claims since it's such a controversial area, conversely remove any scientific claims drawn only from magazines such as NewScientist which aren't peer reviewed journals. I'll give the article a vigorous review in about a month (which is when I'll have spare time again ;) ).
Watch youself though, this is the kind of article which can become heated. Jefffire 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecdysozoa

Dear Jefffire, I took the liberty to bring back the Ecdysozoa controversy part in a slightly rephrased way. If you still think this is nothing but POV, I would be happy to know what could be done to reduce the POV-like appearance of what I have added. I am not a native speaker of English, after all, and some passages may sound a bit more affirmative and provocative than they deserve, and than I wanted them to be.

I would like to ensure you once again that I added the controversy section because I believed that whenever a notable controversy still exists within the scientific community, it should be clearly mentioned in the article. Moreover, as a Zoologist by education I know that some claims made by the inventors of Ecdysozoa (like the one about the amoeboid sperm in all Ecdysoza) are not factually true, which can be confirmed by any sound University textbook, let alone by monographs specifically written on the subject. I do know that Wikipedia is no place for original research, but I tried my best to add the references to the reliable sources pulished either as papers in the peer-reviewed journals, or as scientific monographs.

Sincerely, Alexei Kouprianov 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I put your talk page on my Watchlist, so, please, feel free to answer wherever you feel comfortable.

I fully agree that controversy exists, but the lophotrocozoan/ecdysozoan clades are now the majority view of biologists and whilst there are irregularities like some of those you mention, they are not fundamental problems and aren't rigidly accepted as synapomorphies. I'm limited for time at the moment, but in a few weeks I'd like to take a better look at the issue. Jefffire 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll be waiting. As for the majority, I am still in doubt, because it heavily depends on how do you defne biologists in this particular case. It is as useful as to inquire people in the street, whether they really believe that they descended from apes? Last spring the Russian Centre for Public Opinion (VCIOM) pulished a result of their poll showing that no more than 40% strongly agree with this claim. Now what? Should we rewrite the Russian wiki article about Homo sapiens to reflect the majority opinion (i.e., that human beings are of divine or extraterrestrial origin)? How can you be sure that the majority of experts in arthropods, annelids, roundworms, tardigrada, and other groups involved hold to the view that Ecdysozoa is a monophyletic group? I doubt. Never heard of such polls. Did you? Alexei Kouprianov 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I take it's general acceptance in most major biological journals and the article therein as a fairly good indication. Jefffire 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hang on a second, are we discussing whether every single thing in the Ecysozoa belongs there, or whether it's a natural grouping at all? Jefffire 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Dear Jefffire,

I am working with a few people on improving the Ohio Wesleyan University article to an FA status. I was told that you might be willing to help us with POV issues that might still be present in the article. Do you mind taking a look when you have the time? Thank you so much!!!WikiprojectOWU 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I'm quite busy for the next few days. Come wedensdays I've all the time in the world. Jefffire 12:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! It will be greatly appreciated! I think there may be minor POV issues left additional edits/comments help us improve the article tremendously! WikiprojectOWU 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohm interpretation

Hi,

On 16 November 2006, you removed a large section of the article on the Bohm interpretation. When such a large, whole-sale deletion is done, it is customary to copy the deleted text to the talk page, and explicitly critique it to indicate what was wrong with it. Without such notice, the edit seems vandalistic, and that is not good. Your edit summary was "Remove this essay. Wikipedia does not publish original research", however, I fail to say any basis for this remark; it doesn't seem to be original research, it seems to be a rather mainline discussion. In your next edit summary, you state "I can't approach many meaning changes due to my lack of experise, but the article is definately confusing and lacking in verification in places." This begs a question: if you lack expertise, by what rational to do you explain a large deletion?

If you find the article confusing, you should raise this as an issue on the talk page. The article is written at a rather low, non-technical level that I would hope is approachable by the layman. Specific,detailed commentary is a much more useful guide to future editors, than some blanket statement along the lines of "gee I don't get it." linas 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is clearly unverified PoV. Wikipedia does not publish unverified material or PoV material. I have removed the section. Please see WP:PoV and WP:NOR. Jefffire 11:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJefffire_f100.html"