Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result of an anonymous user repeatedly forging signatures and removing others' votes, I have semi-protected this RFA. Please feel free to remove protection if appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's why you have to be logged on to vote. Axiomm 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

(please move to vote when unprotected; thanks) (done)

ScienceApologist on Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology presents some pretty disturbing perspective on what is and is not "NPOV":

Cosmic iron whiskers

Since such things have never been observed, we need to describe what the proposal actually is (that is, an attempt to cover the backside of people who are pathologically skeptical of the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kiding; that's about as biased as anyone could possibly get. Why don't you just edit Heaven to explain that it's an attempt to repress the fear of death? Sure, it may be, but saying so is very much your point of view. Until there is evidence one way or another, it is an alternative hypothesis. Or do you have a source saying it's a backside-covering attempt?

The description I added is neutral: "Quasi-steady state proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers,' condensing out of iron ejected from supernovae, to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation." with a reference including the URL.

Also, when the cosmology template and another fixed width template such as {{POV}} are side-by-side, they overlap in narrow windows because they are both fixed width. --James S. 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to explain cosmic iron whiskers in terms of QSS as an idea based on no observations. But the wording you proposed was preposterously in violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

LossIsNotMore 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TruthCrusader: inappropriate insistence

User:TruthCrusader's nagging of oppose voters comes close to harassment. It's certainly not doing the candidate any favours, and it's just bad behaviour. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

• It would be nice if joshua would call off his attack dog, but it wouldn't be very realistic to expect that to ever happen--F.O.E. 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  You continue to show you are unable to deal with other users in a civil manner. I agree with those who feel your vote should be discounted unless you can find a way to make a rational and above all civil point about why you oppose ScienceApologist. Before Joshua's "attack dog" said anything to you, you called ScienceApologist a "bigot" among other things. You probably also consider him an "evilutionist", right? But I'm sure you would never let something like a partisan dispute interfere with your voting decisions, right?

  For these and reasons detailed on the project page, F.O.E.'s vote should be disregarded. Kasreyn 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)