User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Encouragement

Keep up the good work. I appreciate your stand on the anthroposophy article. Its a psuedoscientific mess. (RookZERO 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

alt text

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions regarding space/time in such detail. Tom Cod 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for going to bat for science

Thank you for your untiring vigilance against the creep of pseudoscientific disinformation on Wikipedia. If I tried to do what you do, I think I would go crazy.  :-) HEL 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for being a "voice" of reason (pun intended) in Electronic voice phenomenon

I second the notion: thank you for your untiring vigilance against the creep of pseudoscientific disinformation on Wikipedia. But there is such a thing as going too far. Perhaps in the case of the illustration for the EVP article you might suggest an alternative image that is both useful and appropriate. -- LuckyLouie 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suspected sockpuppets

I agree that the edits of these two editors are very suspicious, both in terms of the edits themselves and the months in which they are active. There seems to be a very strong indication that either they are both editing or neither. However, I think there was a Check User done a few months ago, and they don't have the same IP address. Of course, there are ways around that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On Feb 14, 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gravitor indicates that there is no IP or geographic connection. Therefore, I think the meatpuppet angle should be pursued. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carfiend and Gravitor / Gravitor and Carfiend

Thanks for the tip about yet another, probably fruitless, attempt to get an admin to do something about those two, who are otherwise known as "the gift that keeps on giving". Wahkeenah 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed by now, the admin did an excellent job of connecting the dots, even to a user I had apparently chosen to forget (For Great Justice) and indefinitely suspended it/them. Wahkeenah 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all your comments. And I'm all for second and third chances. I've been slapped a time or two myself, justifiably. But if one doesn't learn from his mistakes, there's only so much slack you can cut them, and then some action is required. Peace be with us. :) Wahkeenah 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The one lurking user that was overlooked is another redlink called Axlalta. I think he's less of a threat, and may not be such a one-note. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan

Despite what misgivings you might have of me, I consider myself a rational naturalist (ask MindBender and BillC if you have doubts). I don't buy Langan's philosophy, but I understand it, and while it's interesting, it's not really falsifiable in the traditional sense. However, the CMTU section is clearly couched in terms of "he says" and "he believes", etc, and is clearly attributed to his own writings. Therefore, I don't understand your personal opposition to it. Oh, I've read what you've written as your rationale, but it doesn't make sense to me at all. If there is a larger angle that I am missing, please email me; you will have my complete confidence and discretion. --Otheus 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page --Otheus 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with discussing issues with you. There is a real issue I have with reporting on ideas in Wikipedia that have received no critical review. WP:FRINGE and WP:SCIENCE are being developed to avoid this problem. This is why I don't think that an exposition of Langan's ideas should be included: they are inherently un-encyclopedic. I am a deletionist, so I think that secondary sources are of the utmost importance. --ScienceApologist 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I cannot agree with your overall approach to building an encyclopaedia. I will think about what common ground we might reach, for the future. --Otheus 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added to my watchlist a number of articles you have edited since November. I am telling you this because I am not wikistalking, but because our interests on these topics greatly lap and I'm willing to learn from the examples you have set forth in these articles. Since you and I do have different perspectives on Wikipedia, we will no doubt clash on ideas; however, arguing with you is certainly not my goal. Articles added: Spirituality, Quackwatch, Gordon Pask, William G. Tift, Antrhoposophy, Superseded scientific theories, Cold fusion, Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, Dark matter, Galaxy rotation curve, Plasma cosmology, Tired light, Immanuel Velikovsky, Robert Sungenis, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Scientific consensus, Telepathy, Biblical literalism, Psionics, Psychic detective, Redshift. Note, I absolutely steer away from evolution/creation controversy for multiple, personal reasons. Also, I took the "materialist" test you took. See my home page.--Otheus 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A rather confusing warning

[1] Look closer, it was your edit, and you have all now violated the 3rr rule many times over. CINEGroup 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


I'd judge the warnings given by CINEGroup to be wrong and maybe even abusive. Please bring your evidence. --Pjacobi 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I only count three edits (not counting consecutive ones, which count as one edit) in the last 24 hours (actually only two, the third is a couple minutes outside 24), so there's no way he can be over 3RR. If you really think he is, you can report him at WP:AN3RR and it will be rejected by the admins there. --Minderbinder 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Today IS still April 18th 2007 is it not? [2] Well according to Wikipedia, you just edited that within the last 20 minutes, and you performed 3 edits to the page within 5 minutes at that. CINEGroup 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I see, that you are totally clueless. Please start by learning what "revert" means in 3RR. It is just impossible to violate 3RR by 3 adjacent edits only. --Pjacobi 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I don't know what to say. Are you really that unaware of Wikipedia policies? WP:3RR applies to reverts, not to edits. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the two warnings as they were inappropriately placed. Cheers. Dina 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported the article nevertheless at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, mostly out of fear what User:Liam Patrick is aiming at. I'm aware that some of us think, that WP:BLP is used to portrait some not so pleasant people more positive than they are, but IMHO that has to some extent be accepted. --Pjacobi 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Davcal deliberately antagonistic

Hi ScienceApologist. I was just wondering what your take on Davcal is.

I've tried to initiate a number of conversations with him about some of his (imho) extreme edits and PoV on his talk page but he erases them and uses foul language to describe them in his edit comments. In the article on EVP he always seems to be pushing the same diatribe and PoV as well as reverting constantly points which seem to be quite important (such as this one about voices).

As you have been around in Wikipedia longer trhan I have, is this just a case of persevering or is there some way of stopping him being deliberately antagonistic or ignorant? Candy 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Candy 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dreadlocke

I believe you should include User:Dreadlocke into your arbitration and evidence. His edits are very similar to those of the other people involved in the Arb-com and I would hate to see his long history of POV and quarrelsome editing go unnoticed due to his not having edited for a few weeks.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I award a Barnstar to you.

The Original Barnstar
I am awarding you this barn star for your work in helping to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain this edit

This is what you did? You just made a smear edit summary and false statement. The person there is a former NASA speech-recognition consultant and "Fortana" is a distinguished professor, if you think they are unreliable that's your POV, but their academic background informations should not be removed. Also a diatribe-like edit summary is so unnecessary. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I've replied you on the ArbCom workshop. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain another edit made by you

This, you have used egregiously un-encyclopedic language to describe a person (would you see Britannica say someone "fancies himself as ...", you probably should use "claim to be ..."), can you provide any justification for it? WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no problem with that. What is wrong with saying someone "fancies" himself as something? Though you could always change the wording to "Purports to be" or "claims to be" and I doubt Scienceapologist would have objected.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, he does fancy himself as a microelectronics expert doesn't he? I was simply trying to attribute the claim to who made it. What's wrong with that? --ScienceApologist 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have credentials in microelectronics, then you are an expert, if not, then you are not worth mentioning. Your edit simply portray a person to be a lunatic daydreaming or something like that. Although I'm a little reluctant to make random guesses here, I do guess he is an expert in microelectronics (frankly, anyone with a degree in that field and has experience in some highly regarded institutes can all be said to be "experts"). Also, the word "fancies to be..." is a little un-encyclopedic and smack of personal attack. Anyways, I think you made that edit without doing any research about that guy, am I right? WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What credentials does MacRae have, exactly? And, no, I've done more research on MacRae than I ever had wanted to. What I found was that the guy has only his say-so and the say-so of his friends and fellow paranormal advocates backing up his claims of credentials. I get the impression that it is probably you who has not done their research (WP:RTFA, for example). Am I right? --ScienceApologist 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry for overlooking that. And I apologize for previous strong-language comments against you. I have tried the best not to take it personally, as in the workshop I have proposed proposals regarding to the behavior of other editors as well. I know you might mean well, and many of your contributions are generally good ones. The things is that your actions really made people more angry rather than solving the problem. I have proposed to caution you and others and the only purpose for that is to make you all edit more civilly. A caution wouldn't hurt anyone, would it? We are editing an enclyclopedia, and on paranormal-related topics there are many disagreements, sometimes both sides can get emotional. However, what we need to solve a controversy is collaboration, not confrontation. I've generally edited in the area of politics and law, and disagreement over there has been even stronger, but what I've seen there mostly is compromise and cooperation. I don't think paranormal-related articles should be a battleground. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an issue that a lot of law and politics editors do not understand and that is that ideas that are subject to science are based on a strict standard methodology including scrupulous observations and collaboration that just cannot happen in law and politics due to the rhetorical nature of the disciplines. While it is easily possible to be plainly correct or incorrect in science, law and politics are only based on arguments and language-based interpretations. What people who avoid science and mathematics fail to understand is the logical and foundational basis of mathematics and science monopolize phenomenology. A lawyer or a politician may find it uncomfortable that scientists reject a flat earth when there are dissenting opinions, but this is an issue already settled by science, just as the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal is already settled by science. Compromise is possible only when editors realize that when they are dealing with observational phenomenon, they are stepping into the purview of science. There is not and indeed cannot be a plurality of opinions on the matter, and no amount of collaboration will make the paranormal phenomena you choose to believe in based on repeatable observations. What I state may appear harsh, but this is the world in which we live and we are charged as editors of this encyclopedia to describe this world to the best of our abilities: not to sugar-coat it for the benefit of those who would wish it to be otherwise. I am as civil as I possibly can be. --ScienceApologist 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] check your password

You might want to change your password. You user name appears to have been used in reverse POV pushing - deleting basic facts separating claimed paranormal phenomona and ordinary everyday phenomona and things that show that official bodies aren't actively engaged in researching the paranormal.

perfectblue 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Presuming that I'm talking to the real SA, some of your edits are could be classified as POV pushing in favor of the paranormal.
perfectblue 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal RfA

Hi. With regards to this edit, I may have misconstrued what you are saying, or you've not worded it as you intended. My synopsis of that edit is "For a resource that reports knowledge, it is unacceptable to refuse to accommodate linguistic misconceptions." Was this what you meant to say, or have I misinterpreted you? Regards, — BillC talk 13:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang FAR

Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

A quick warning notice that pushing a project approved infobox designed to be put at the top of a page down to the bottom of a page is a disruptive edit that is covered under POINT and Vandalism, and is therefor outside of the boundaries of the #3RR rule.

perfectblue 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Project approved"? Since when do projects trump article consensus? --Minderbinder 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


This is not a full width infobox, it should only be 280px wide. You're browser is obviously not handling the code. I suspect that you're using IE and that it is not wordwrapping and that it's pushing the width of the infobox out to the maximum length of the sentence in the picture's caption.

perfectblue 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the infobox, I don't know exactly which browser you are using but you should see the difference. As I said, I suspect that your browser wasn't word wrapping the text and was instead overriding the maximum width setting coded in for the columns used in the infobox, making it appear to be full width on your screen. Have you considered upgrading your browser or trying a different one?

Hence, while you saw a wide infobox, other people saw a narrow one

perfectblue 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endophysics

Any idea of what is this about? Why do you say it's pseudoscience? Tizio 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed both categories, pseudo or proto. If you want to add either of them back, write about it in the article first then add category. A category without any mention in the article is inappropriate. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about categories. The problem here is that we have been having an article with the {{expert}} tag for quite a long time, and no expert has shown up so far. Since SA was the first person I saw making a content change to the article (changing a category), I'm asking whether (s)he has some kind of expertise on the subject. The categories are really not the problem here. Tizio 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi - as the nominator of the original article for an Afd I thought you might like to know I have just AfD'ed its brother/son, Electric Enceladus, which, appallingly for an encyclopaedia, has managed to survive here for 5 months. Crackpot pseudo-science at its very worst - not just because it is junk, plenty of that kicks about, but because they are trying to spam it everywhere. SFC9394 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang

SA, I appreciate your defense of (apology for?) real science in recent talk page discussions. At times I was quite discouraged that that there wasn't more of an outcry against stubbornness, shoddy thinking, slipshod arguments, and chest-thumping. I spend a lot of effort attempting to make a reasonable case to what seemed to be an unreasonable audience. Cruising around the wiki pages it looked like I was mostly advised to try and compromise. I'm still annoyed at how one stubborn person can hold up progress on an article that's actually been moving in a great direction. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

Also, kudos for never, in any of the posts of yours that I've ever come across, claiming to be an expert in anything. Despite this, methinks you more about what you're talking about than you let on.

Lastly, looking over the posts from this debacle, I also appreciate your ability to keep cool, something I'm going to have to keep working on. Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. Cheers, Wesino | t | 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th revert and Non-Cooperation : paraphysics

I will be notifying someone about this. J. D. Redding

Be my guest. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove my comments

Do not remove my comments in talk pages. J. D. Redding 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HFGWs

I've been noticing a bunch of somewhat suspicious edits related to High-Frequency Gravitational Waves by csblack. I think the page on HFGWs is nonsense (talks about using them for nuclear fusion, surveillance, and spacecraft propulsion), and the week-old user has only edited the HFGW page and added a series of "see alsos" to tons of other (completely unrelated) pages, such as "big bang." Any advice on the wiki protocol for dealing with something that seems like pseudoscience? wesino //t// 19:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, POV fork does sound right. BTW, I think the Wiki link for that is WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK (The latter redirects to something about mirror Wiki sites) wesino //t// 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Going around trying to repair the "see also"s, it was nice to see how many other editors had caught on to nonsense and deleted them already... Cheers, wesino //t// 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have (again) redirected HFGWs to gravitational waves. I agree completely with the spirit of your actions, but I think the reasons should generally be known to other editors. I've discussed a few of the problems on Talk:High-Frequency Gravitational Waves. The most uncontroversial problem is that the entire history section is plagiarized, almost verbatim, from another source. Still, I would like it if we could make a completely solid case against this article, with a majority of editors agreeing with it before proceeding. Is this being discussed elsewhere? Silly rabbit 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(Replying to your reply.) Yes, I agree with your action. I just hope it sticks, because otherwise nothing is going to stop an editor — likely well-meaning, but ignorant — from reviving the article at some point in the near future. Silly rabbit 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus version"

I am more than a little bothered by your calling the redirect of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves a "consensus version". If there was a growing consensus, it was for an AfD, not a redirect. Be bold if you like, but please do not call it a "consensus" action. This got reverted once by another editor, and if it gets reverted again I will not support you on this, but instead will also work to keep the article up as-is pending an AfD.

Do be aware that I am giving serious thought to being to one who reverts this last redirect, if only because the claim of "consensus" is fradulent. The article being a piece of junk is the only thing stopping me from doing so. --EMS | Talk 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello SA, sorry if I have been too rude on the arbitration. From some thread in project-space, forgot where, you mentioned "your student...", so are you a professor? If it's true then I shouldn't be that disrespectful since I'm only a student. Anyways, it's better to clarify here that myself is kinda existentialist, believing in the uniqueness of individual experience and free choice, that's probably why I seems to be a gadfly on the ArbCom page, not accepting rationalism or other stuff. But I realize that personal philosophy shouldn't affect editing. So I have a question about EVP, that according to the article (frankly, I knew nothing about it before seeing the article), EVP uses electronic devices to record paranormal sounds. Which element in its process violate scientific method? From what I learned in high school, scientific method is "purpose, hypothesis, observation, data, and conclusion", so I'm kinda confused. Thanks! WooyiTalk to me? 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have verified ScienceApologist's credentials.Proabivouac 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into details since this isn't really the place to get into a long discussion, but one might refer to Occam's razor in this discussion. Roughly, Occam's razor states that one ought not invoke unnecessary entities. In the EVP case, say you have two explanations for the voice-like sounds that you hear. One is some paranormal phenomenon, while the other is merely interference. Now, if you have evidence to point to one or the other, show the evidence and explain your conclusion. However, if you have to essentially pick randomly between the two because there is no evidence that would help you determine if you're hearing true extra-physical phenomena or just getting interference, following Occam's razor would suggest that you chalk things up to interference since you don't have to invent some new physics or ghosts/etc. that have not been confirmed by others. Occam's razor is not a scientific tenet, but it is considered useful. As always, you can also refer to verifiability and falsifiability as tenets of useful investigation. Antelan talk 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A clarification for Wooyi: EVP uses electronic devices to attempt to record paranormal sounds. EVP also violates a basic ground rule of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. - LuckyLouie 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Proabivouac, you forgot to mention that you were able to verify that ScienceApologist is NOT a professor,[3] although your response above seems to give the opposite impression. And yet you said it was a mistake for me to challenge said credentials.[4]
  • I wonder what lesson a student will learn from someone who says they are a professor, and isn't, and from someone who deliberately perpetuates the "exaggeration". --Iantresman 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Iantresman, you are making something out of nothing. "Professor" is, in standard American usage, not only a formal academic rank, but also a job description, see definition 2b:[5] Now consider the question he was posed above: "From some thread in project-space, forgot where, you mentioned "your student...", so are you a professor?" The question is clearly premised upon the definition of professor as instructor (indeed, one with the formal title Professor may not even have any students,) and I responded accordingly.Proabivouac 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I read the definition of Professor too, and noted that ".. in the United States, .. individuals often use the term professor as a polite form of address ..", which is quite different from the academic position, and the usual subject when asking someone about what they do (for a living).
  • In most cases, this would indeed be something out of nothing, but accuracy and clarity in Wikipedia and in science very important, especially as ScienceApologist is quite forward in labelling myself,[6], and others,[7] [8], with an emphasis on job titles,[9]--Iantresman 10:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not reference the Wikipedia article you quote, but the definition given by Merriam-Webster. It is exactly due to the Essjay issues and in the service of rigorous accuracy that I clarified these credentials, as you've quoted. Your characterization of me as "someone who deliberately perpetuates the "exaggeration"" was completely uncalled for, inaccurate and offensive.
More to the point than any of this is that SA has done serious work in exactly the subjects (some of them at least) he's edited. Being a professor in a given field doesn't ipso facto make one an expert in any particular aspect of that field. I strongly suggest dropping this line of argument. If SA has been uncivil to you, trolling his resume and those who've verified it doesn't help.Proabivouac 11:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was an obvious ambiguity which you chose not to clarify.
  • I did not "troll his resume" because he has been uncivil, but because he said he was an a "mainstream expert in the material"[10], and professor,[11], while, for example,
  • Making it an issue that I am a "nonscientist layman"[12]
  • Suggesting that certain sources were not reliable because the authors were writers, technicians, or Xerox employees, [13], and forgetting to mention that all these source were peer reviewed. Another "exaggeration".
  • If you criticise others for their expertise and credentials, and proclaim yours, don't be surprised if someone checks. --Iantresman 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So he is a professor in every sense of the word, except for the fact that he is being paid less by his college than he will be when he attains that rank. How does this diminish his credentials? At any rate, the credentials of anyone are less important than the information and the sources that they bring to bear. Antelan talk 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Um ... no ... not in "every sense" of the word except title ... and the only references I found of him (in a speaker list) titles him as a "student". SA does have a group of defenders, though ... I don't hold "titles" in high reguard ... but I do hold good conduct and contributing information (or, atleast not removing available information) in high regard, both of which SA lacks IMO. J. D. Redding
  • According to Professor, he is not a professor in any sense of the term (a) a senior academic, no (b) holds a departmental chair, no, (c) head of the department, no (d) personal chair awarded specifically to that individual, no, (e) Any of the North American, "Main positions", no. But I have no doubt that his students call him professor as a term of address
  • But you are quite correct that the "credentials of anyone are less important than the information and the sources that they bring to bear", and perhaps you should remind ScienceApologist of that.[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs)
I fail to see how the diff you referenced would be interpreted as SA relying on his credentials. At any rate, since this is on his talk page, I'm sure he'll see this reminder. It doesn't hurt any of us to be reminded of that from time to time. Antelan talk 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to ArbCom:Paranormal

In this diff [15] you add a "not" to a sentence - but it already has one. Just wanted to make sure you had spotted that. SheffieldSteel 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User:Reddi Tesla POV-pushing

I noticed Reddi has violated the 3RR rule at Radio astronomy[16]. Dunno if this rule is a joke or if it has teeth. If it is worth wile I can take some time reporting it later tonight unless you want to do it. Dunno if i can be any help re:Electric power transmission since I doun't know much about it but I can always take a look. Halfblue 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I may report the wp:3rr3RR since it happened in front of my eyes although he has not reverted my last removal. I see he has reported himself at WP:AN/3RR apparently in a pre-emptive strike. Let me know if there is something I should do re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Halfblue 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Overt teaming up? Hmmm ... J. D. Redding 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reddi is also editing Teslascope. Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement

I have left comments re: Arbitration enforcement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. There is an initial comment that since he is off probation they may not be able to proceed and Reddi's edits would have to be brought "to ANI or to dispute resolution as a new matter rather than treat it as arbitration enforcement". If I need to do something as a "next step" or if I am needed for comment in this matter let me know (sorry, I am new to this "disruptive editor" problem). Halfblue 03:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First steps

I am going with the first resort in resolving conflicts with you and discuss the over all issue(s).

I am interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

I will try to focus my contributions on other articles where you and I can make constructive progress .. if you can do the same. In due course we would be able to return and carry on editing them, when/if the problems no longer exist ...

Would you be willing for "Informal mediation"? The Mediation Cabal can assist in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation. There is also Informal mediation "Conduct a survey" and formal "Mediation". I would like to try some Informal mediation 1st.

You seem to want to jump to the "Last resort" of arbitration, as of your recent edits. Is it possible to try some "Informal mediation"? J. D. Redding 01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring comments?

Are you ignoring this? J. D. Redding 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your actions of not addressing my first step does not give me hope.

And your actions here [17] is not good either ... J. D. Redding

[edit] User talk:Reddi

Clarify answer to questions, please.

Thank you. J. D. Redding 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quasar

Ok, look, stop removing the unbalanced template from Quasar! It's unbalanced in that there is no "best explanation for quasars". No one knows for sure to what the heck they are. Plus, how can a black hole emit light? It sucks in all the light. Anyway, stop removing the unbalanced template. Thank you. --Andrew Hampe Talk 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the comment I made on the quasar talk page. --Andrew Hampe Talk 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have flown out to a quasar, torn it apart, figured out how it works, and created a quasar, STOP CHANGING MY EDITS! --Andrew Hampe Talk 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

As a fellow despiser of bullshit, I'd just like to say thanks and hang in there. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of peer review

Thank you for your response,

Then is it possible to submit two papers for your peer review section, that once they are approved by your knowledgeable panels then you can bring the matter into the right site.

One paper is titled “The seed of the earth” [18]

The second is “The creation of gravity”. [19]

Thank you Keshe Theory 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) keshe

[edit] Proper Sourcing

In reference to this and a previous edit, would you mind explaining what you mean by improper sourcing, and give an example of what you would consider to be a proper source? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you responded on the talk page after I put this up, so let's just continue the discussion there. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with User:Reddi

Sorry... real world kept me from being on-line during your discussion at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. That quick 2 day (4 hour!!!) window was to quick for me. Should I drop a comment at the bottom of that page under a new heading? If some other discussion is going on let me know, Thanks. Halfblue 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ok. I have a comment for Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard ready but if you think WP:RfArb is a better course of action I will put it on hold for now. I will go ahead and post at WP:RfArb soon. Let me know if I should take a different action at the present time. Halfblue 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for probation extension has been left at WP:RfArb

Sorry, I was too late for your CSN posting too. IPSOS (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to WP:DICK is counterproductive, at least since this edit. There, we just saved ourselves another Wikitrial. Art LaPella 05:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The WP:CSN is a mighty resource that is best left unused, most of the time. RfArb has the potential of giving more rational results. EdJohnston 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flood geology

Could you please explain this edit – [20]. Bishonen edited the article once, and you throw accusations of WP:POT and WP:GAME? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rude

That and that was amazingly rude. Do you take me for a troll? Bishonen | talk 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Category deleted

Hi ScienceApologist. What do you think of the recent deletion of Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation? Cardamon 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Heat and Thermal energy for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it looks like a Fair Cop Guv. Please don't fight these battles all alone - people will help if you ask William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

ScienceApologist, the first of your four edits were themselves reverts to the version before the merge templates were (very recently) placed. What should have happened is for you to have appeared on the relevant talk pages to explain why this merger is a bad idea.Proabivouac 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the diff that indicates this? Because I can't find it. --ScienceApologist 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust.

Bye Wikipedia.

I hereby retire. I can't stand the fact that no one actively helps fighting the actions of uneducated editors who make really dumb claims like "heat is the same thing as thermal energy". If the Wikipedia will continue to refuse to give experts the editorial control necessary to guard against such errors, then there is really no place for experts at Wikipedia. They will leave as I am leaving.

--ScienceApologist 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy to hear this. I agree with you that experts should be given editorial control, but there might be other ways of accomplishing this. You need to join talk. That won't help sway dedicated cranks - that's for ArbCom, I guess - but some people might simply fail to understand why you're doing what you're doing, and might appreciate and be convinced by your explanation. Educate them. Alternately, you can solicit the involvement of other editors such as William M Connelley or myself.Proabivouac 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm also sorry to see you go, but fully understand the reasons. I would have left a long time ago (and nearly did so a couple of times) but felt I could not in good conscience abandon the project to the lunatic anti-science POV-pushers. My rationale is that as long as people are going to continue using this thing, I have a responsibility to try and make it conform to reality. But when all you get for your trouble is a kick in the teeth it's hard to continue. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I too say, don't go William M. Connolley 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We've got a long row to hoe here, and it'll much tougher without your help. It's frustrating and time-consuming working on Wikipedia, but I think it is in the end worthwhile, and fun to boot. I hope you reconsider, or at least return after a nerve-soothing vacation at the beach. --Art Carlson 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are/were one of the great editors. I'm sorry to see you go and hope you will be back. Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Will Be Missed

Your abilities in all things WP:V, your talents in WP:SPADE, and your crystal-tipped logic will be sorely missed around here. Were it not for your clearly stated rationale for retirement, I would be begging you, for the good of Wikipedia, to stay until the Paranormal arbitration is finished. Antelan talk 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Nevermind, I'm going to beg anyway. Antelan talk 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I, also, will miss you. Cardamon 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wifflebat award

The Wiki Wiffle Bat
I'm awarding you this Wiki Wiffle bat for having shown exceptional skill in the area(s) of logic, rationality, dispute resolution/mediation particularly in the face of flames and general animosity. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defender of the Wiki

This is really bad news. Your abilities, dedication and energy here will be greatly missed. I hope that you will reconsider and return one day, hopefully soon. In recognition of your efforts, I give you this barnstar, hoping that you will appreciate it. — BillC talk 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Awarded to ScienceApologist for being one of the sane ones.

[edit] Departing essay

Because experts are not given recognition on Wikipedia and indeed looked on as somewhat suspect, editors that are ignorant or outright cranks are afforded way too much power at this site. I was blocked for reverting the actions of an editor who had declared that because people (which "people" these were was never made clear) use heat and thermal energy interchangably, Wikipedia should do the same. When I made good faith changes to conform to reality he reverted them without comment. What my allies say I should have done was find other editors to help revert him back and thus avoid 3RR. I think that this is esentially meatpuppetry and effectively a tactic that is also in opposition to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact is that there is no policy or guideline in place that enables quick and effective response to ignorant editors who should be treated similarly to vandals. People who haven't taken a physics class in their life shouldn't be editting physics articles for content. When they habitually introduce errors into the encyclopedia they should be reverted as quickly as someone would revert petty vandalism.

I appreciate the help that others give, but it should not be required that I recruit other editors to get around the three revert rule for fighting ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that consensus as it is explicated here is an extremely flawed ideal that essentially makes Wikipedia a community devoted to mob rule rather than the accurate explication of facts and ideas. Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-nit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. It is an intolerable nightmare, one that the community refuses to address for fear of becoming "elitist". But elitism is only a vice when it is unwarranted. When you get Velikovskians writing articles on the solar system, you have accomodated to your detriment. Unless Wikipedia addresses this, devoted idiots will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia until quasars become laser stars, the Big Bang never happened, evolution is just a theory: not a fact, and the Parapsychological Association will be afforded the ability to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.

Disgusting. The community needs to de-yellow their livers and ban the lot of lunatic fringe editors who think that their particular woo-woo belief is what deserves accomodating.

--ScienceApologist 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.
I'm sorry that I didn't notice this silliness while it was happening, and that I only notice it now. Had I noticed it earlier, you wouldn't have had to recruit me; I'd have jumped in. But yes, even that shouldn't have been necessary. Or on practical grounds, I'm sure that I lack the energy, fanaticism and tenacity of Velikovskians and the like.
I believe that "Citizendium" welcomes qualified physicists. I hope it does. -- Hoary 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not by any means alone in these sentiments. Hope to see you at Citizendium. ---CyberAnth 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice: The process takes time to work. If you find yourself battling a crank, just leave a concise, content-oriented comment on the talk page and any associated project pages, then go away for a few days. The world won't end if some Wikipedia article is screwed up for awhile, and dollars-to-donuts, by the time you come back, enough others will have noticed the screwiness that it will be fixed by consensus. I've found myself involved in stupid squabbles around here. The answer, in my experience, is just to remember that Wikipedia doesn't matter. Don't get caught up in arguments. Just say your peace, then go away and let others take it from there. Wikipedia has lots of scientists, lots of physicists, lots of artists, lots of croquet players, etc., and the good outnumbers the bad over time. Best wishes, Gnixon 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

YOu edited first right? ( re thermal) So doesn't that mean the other guy reverted YOU 3 times?? sounds like thats an option, or correct him in new para/sentence straight after. BUt by the way Evoloution is only a theory... its CALLEd the "theory on evolution" and its not perfect- thats what my Zoology evolution lecturer said in 1998- unless we have researched a better theory since then. IN my science degree we were constantly told all scince is theroy waiting to be proven wrong- or right. Einstin proved some long ones wrong and he was proven wrong... lets not get too carried away with "scientific arrogance".Cilstr 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :-(

Hope that you reconsider after a break. FloNight 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do too, but in the meantime, his mini-essay should be required reading for the community.
See also Tom harrison's recent statement.[21]Proabivouac 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm collecting them here. Raymond Arritt 23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. I hope that ScienceApologist returns. Eusebeus 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

As the 'uneducated editor' who proposed the ill-advised merger between 'heat' and 'thermal energy' in the first place, I can't help but feel responsible for your leaving Wikipedia, even though I had no part in the edit war that followed. I just wanted to say that I'm extremely sorry for what happened - I proposed that merger in good faith (if from a position of utter scientific ignorance), and I never meant for it to lead to arguments and people leaving the project in disgust.

You're entirely right about the problems with Wikipedia - by its nature, it is anti-scientific, favouring the mob over the informed expert, and 'consensus' over provable fact. But I don't think that's reason enough to leave: on the contrary, it makes it all the more important that better informed editors stay around to fight that anti-scientific culture and explain why certain edits are simply wrong, whether backed by consensus or not.

I've already learned my lesson: I won't in future be making any major changes to topics I know nothing about. My 'understanding' of heat and thermal energy was wrong, and I should never have proposed merging the two without doing any research on the subject. But many others still have that attitude, and will continue to make ignorant edits to scientific articles until they learn that they shouldn't do so.

The Wikipedia community needs to improve its policy in this area, so that it gives more respect to the informed scientific perspective. I would rather see established editors staying and working to change that policy than giving up and leaving. If you wish to leave the project, neither I nor anyone else can stop you - but you are clearly a highly valued and experienced editor, and Wikipedia will be the worse for your departure. I for one hope that you will reconsider.

Once again, I apologise for all problems I have caused. Thanks for reading. Terraxos 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You deserve this

The E=mc² Barnstar
I have watched you for months and months as you beat back countless cranks and vandals and upheld policy and verifiability over dubious claims to keep Wikipedia's science articles accurate. I hope you come back some day, but for now, take this barnstar; you deserve it. —Dark•Shikari[T] 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Something to Think About

Several weeks ago I posted a link on the Dark Matter page, which pointed to an article that I wrote on the subject. This was my first and only post on Wikipedia. I did not edit any article content, I only posted to the External Links section near the bottom of the page. Almost immediately, you removed the post on the basis of vanity, no original research and unreliable source, among others. This was an eye opening experience for me. I must admit that I have never taken even one physics class, but I do have a trunk full of books on the subject. In my naive ignorance, I posted the link with the thought that people with interest in Dark Matter and galaxy formation may find the article thought provoking. I wrote the article for that very purpose over six months before it occurred to me to post a link on Wikipedia.

As a senior level technologist with over two decades of experience, I realized I was being treated in the very same manner that I had long-since resolved never to treat newcomers to my own field; harshly. Like a person in a strange city who takes a wrong turn onto a dark street, I immediately realized that Wikipedia was not where I belonged. I must say that I did not, nor do I now contest the validity of removing the link to my article; in the end I agree that I lack credentials in the area of physics (even though I am convinced my theory on Dark Matter is no less reasonable than any others I have seen ;-)). My real message here is that I understand your frustration. I think you have provided a valuable service to Wikipedia, but the frustration you feel is the very same that you have dealt to others in the execution of your self-appointed role.

I hope you decide to return and carry on this important work. Many kudos for having done so for so long. To succeed you must engage the powers that be at Wikipedia itself. If they do not recognize and support your efforts, then your decision to leave was the right one.

Bclayabt 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree here- esp "I think you have provided a valuable service to Wikipedia, but the frustration you feel is the very same that you have dealt to others in the execution of your self-appointed role." Do be carfull- i have also been bitten ( not by you)... i might sugest here you use talk page more, or even ( if u dont ) explain edits in edit summary,.. also it would be good to "see" your credentials on your User page.... what is your level of "physics lab" experience. I think this would help people that are hurt by your edits/reverts ( if they care to understand why- like i would). I dont think its vanity to do this, but usefull for the community to see where you are comming from, your bias' and perhaps even agenda- doesnt everyone ave one.... Cilstr 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socionomics

You participated in the first AFD, so you may be interested in the second AFD over the recreated article. THF 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering why comments got deleted...

I see you've either reverted or deleted several of my comments in response to your leaving. Not sure why (trying to assume good faith here, but it's tough). You seem to have still missed a couple of the points I was trying to make.

A) No hard feelings, sorry to see you go, despite occasional disputes on a few articles. I do feel you've helped to raise the level of discourse, even if rather contentiously at times.
B) WP doesn't give undue weight to "experts" self-proclaimed or otherwise, as there is no way to determine relative "expertise" nor effectively administer "editorial control" when differing "experts" fundamentally disagree on a topic. To be clear, I'm not saying you don't have expertise, simply that WP has no formal system of evaluating said expertise or evaluating the relative expertise of different editors on any given topic. Best of luck in attempting to effect change, though. :) Perhaps they'll reconsider at some point.
C) Inclusion =/= promotion, so long as a topic is covered from [WP:NPOV|NPOV] standpoint. I realize NPOV is difficult when people have differing perspectives on a controversial issue. But WP is not here to arbitrate/adjudicate "truth" or "rightness" or "wrongness." It's is a report on a specific topic (person, place, thing, event, philosophy, etc.), NOT an essay (opinion is tantamount to O.R.). You and a few others seem to think that WP *is* here to judge the rightness or wrongness of a thing rather than neutrally report on it. That's unfortunate, and seems to have led to a number of misunderstandings and arguments that could have probably been avoided.
Anywho, perhaps we can work constructively on non-controversial topics in the future. Or making controversial topics NPOV. I do respect your opinions, even if I occasionally disagree. I find that hearing both sides of an issue is a good thing for all concerned, and hope you'll eventually reconsider leaving WP. Mgmirkin 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
D) The use of intended ad hominem remarks is repugnant to the sensibility of WP. Case in point your use rampant use of the term "Velikovskian" (which you obviously believe carries negative connotations and you appear to use regularly as a slur) for a good majority of anyone who disagrees with the mainstream interpretations of astronomical data, regardless of whether the person(s) themselves identify themselves as such or even have any knowledge or understanding of the so-called "Velikovsky Affair."
These are the kinds of contentious things the people tend to get upset about. I'm not upset per se. Just pointing it out for some self-reflection on how you might improve so as to be a slightly less contentious editor. I know it's sometimes hard to take the high road. So, I'll leave it at that. Again, no hard feelings. Just some differences of opinion (in my opinion). Mgmirkin 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, almost forgot the point I actually wanted to make, which was that a name is just a name. It shouldn't matter who edits an article (be they Velikovskian, Christian, communist, female, etc.), so long as the article is edited from an NPOV standpoint. IE, better to debate the idea than the person expressing it, in talk pages. Mgmirkin 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, wish ya' the best in whatever you decide to do next. Maybe we'll see you around sometime... Mgmirkin 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Intended as constructive criticism only. Hope it doesn't sound like a rant. If so, I'll apologize in advance. Mgmirkin

[edit] Please reconsider

I know I am terribly late but I learned only today that you wiki-retired. I decided to edit straight from my vacations to ask you for reconsideration. If I knew you fight a lonely battle, I would certainly support you like I did last September when you were blocked (clearly in error) due to another science related controversy you chose the right side in. In future, if you think you need a second opinion, do not hesitate to ask other editors of the science articles. You can start from those of us who supported you after you announced your long wikibreak. Have a good time off wikipedia but please come back! Your Friendly Neighbour 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can be ofttimes be best judged by the enemies you make

I recently found out about your great contributions to the scientific integrity of Wikipedia in an Slashdot article about the recent NASA release about "magnetic reconnection" of a Solar coronal ejection severing a comet's tail where there was follow-up discussion debunking the "Electric Universe" theory and an argument with it's proponents.

Having never heard of the "Electric Universe" theory. I tracked it down to find it to be a crackpot pseudo-scientific metaphysics thing that ignores much of the modern verified data. What was interesting was that it's proponents were still publicly whining about your excellent work here. Having such enemies is high praise.

Normally I would say "keep up the great work" but with your retirement I can only say I'm sorry the crazies wore you down and thank you for your time on the front lines in the fight to keep pseudo-science from blurring the line with real science. Harodotus 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)