User talk:ජපස

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey SA. On this RFC, you've signed on as having certified the basis for this dispute. This implies that you have had the same or a similar dispute as ChrisO. Seeing as how that's being heavily disputed, could I see proof of you tryign and failing to resolve the dispute? The RfC looks like it'll be a fairly heavily trafficked one, I don't want to have to delete it on a technicality. Wizardman 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment Psychophysical parallelism

Hi. I was wondering if you could take a look at the aforementioned article. It is my feeling that this at least falls in to the domain os psychology, but really could be AFDd. That said, I am in a bit of a debate with a user that had a pseudoscience type page deleted and he is attempting (it seems to me) to re create it. I trust your judgement on this. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

science-frontiers

Hi. Could you sum-up your reasons for considering this website to be an unusable source? I'm sure you're right, I'm just curious what specific grounds you object to it on. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like sound reasoning. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. William R. Corliss appears to be a physicist, and his books are catalogued in various bibliographic databases, eg. ADS

In taking a random example here, the reference to the "Novaya Zemlya Effect" is based on an article in Physics Today. Another example here references the page on "New England Seamounts Once Near Surface" which is based on an article by American Scientist.

What's the objection to Science Frontiers, AND, to excluding the references to Physics Today and American Scientist? --Raevaen (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If "Using Physics Today and American Scientist articles directly is not only fine, it's commendable", then why did you exclude them? All you had to do was replace the references to Science Frontiers with the given original refereed source.

Can you provide a source which indicates that Corliss "has obvious POV issues given his particular spin", as I find no evidence of spin, or even negative reviews. Sources indicate the exact opposite.

I find your accusations of sockpuppetry to be insulting. --Raevaen (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RSN vs. Fringe

Hi. I'm familiar with the fringe guidelines and NB, but when I thought about the core of the matter, it was less about the fringe aspect than it was about the nature of the publication venue. When a piece of fringe nonsense makes it into a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the POV-pushers cite chapter and verse from the WP:RS guidelines to defend their position; "If it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it is a reliable source and cannot be excluded from WP simply because you disagree". Basically, they DENY that their work is "fringe" and refuse to acknowledge that WP's fringe guidelines are applicable. Therefore, since they're intent on exploiting WP:RS to their advantage, the logical place to seek a counteracting principle is via the RS forum. The situation in the Morgellons article is less than ideal, but relatively stable (thanks to sprotection), and there are also SOME mainstream criticisms that can be cited in that case. The other article in question has not gotten out of hand yet, but I'd very much prefer to anticipate and avoid a conflict there, by having an appropriate response formulated in advance, rather than having to ad-lib things and violate WP policy myself. That's why I phrased the question in generalized terms: how do you justify prohibiting a citation when it comes from a reliable source, and has no reliable sources that criticize it? If there was a "DO NOT PROMOTE HEALTH SCARES THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE" policy, that would be wonderful, but we don't have any such policy, so truly wacky health scare rumors like Morgellons can be very hard to quell if no one in the medical mainstream feels compelled to comment on them. Why don't people feel compelled? The response I've gotten (the two times I've been in a position to ask) is "Frankly, anyone stupid enough to believe this nonsense is a lost cause. I have better things to do than worry about some idiotic rumors circulating in Wikipedia." - but that response completely abdicates responsibility, and ignores the fact that Wikipedia is a VECTOR for potentially dangerous memes. If someone wrote in WP that kiwifruit caused colon cancer, citing a peer-reviewed source, and NO ONE REFUTED IT, that could do irreparable damage to the kiwifruit industry. How does one prevent such abuses? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the NB and on my talk page. I've copied some of the more significant points to the talk page of the editor who tried - repeatedly - to insert the "single pro-fringe reference", and hopefully this will either get them to acquiesce, or at least engage in a dialog rather than simply edit-warring. If it's all right with you, I'll keep your link on file in case this issue arises again. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Hufford

I hope you don't mind the following suggestion: Since there have been multiple discussions on how to appropriately present his credentials and bias, I think it would be helpful for you to explain your recent edits on the article talk page. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Well put. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda‎

I am puzzled to see Ayurveda‎ is not considered a pseudoscience in wikiepdia. This brach of alternative medicine relies on the concept of Tridosha system which has no scientific basis. Can you add it in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can quickly review these two references [1][2]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility

That you have your own personal process for dealing with it might suggest that there's a problem. The basic rule is simply to talk about the topic. Arguments ad hominem don't work unless you can provoke people into fighting back and then it becomes a question of patience.

I have no interest in getting into a screaming match. If you have a specific problem with my comments, bring it up on my talk page. If you can't argue the point and can only attack the person making the point, you have lost the argument. SDY (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it works so well, why do you need a comment on your talk page about how to deal with apparent incivility? There may be a reason that I'm not the first person to have a concern. SDY (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've dealt with you, so I do know a bit about your history. No, I will not follow your procedure, I care about the attitude, not this particular circumstance. I can't force you to change, but that does not mean I accept the way that you are. SDY (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Given that you have your impressive fortifications, I will invade Czechoslovakia instead. Or was there some other eastern European country I was supposed to blitzkrieg? Ah, yes, I almost forgot Poland! Don't worry, I'll circle around your Great War era tactics soon enough! SDY (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentor

I have a mentor in mind for you. With different tactics I think your editing could be much more beneficial for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AGK has agreed to be your mentor. I recommend that you back away from all conflicts and focus on one or two articles in need of cleanup. Try to get them to good article or featured article status. If you run into problems, please avoid conflict. Instead, ask User:AGK to check the dispute and provide advice. If any administrative action is needed, I will remain uninvolved and available. Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day, S.A. I'm happy to help out both yourself and Jonathan on this matter. If you have any queries at all, regarding myself or how I intend to work with this matter, please get in touch. Regards, Anthøny 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FA article you worked on reached the main page

Congrats! Parapsychology is today's featured article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

ScienceApologist, I think it would be best for the next while, if you didn't revert Martin's edits on articles. I don't feel it's necessary to elaborate as to why. :) I shall ask Martin to do likewise. Cheers, Anthøny 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride

Is it not the case that municipal water supplies sometimes contain naturally occurring fluorine/fluoride compounds? Obviously the anti-fluoride organizations who are the subject of the article have taken this into consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My impression when I brought it up on the village pump a while back is that while these articles ("Criticism of foo" etc...) are problematic, there isn't much of a consensus that the class of article was inappropriate. I was proposing a mass-move to "foo controversy" which doesn't beg the question quite as much, but got very little support. You could try it. Frankly, the opposition is notable, but it should really be placed in an article where it has to obey WP:UNDUE. SDY (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, plausibility isn't easy to measure, but at least we're talking about real molecules in OM, rather than the memory of molecules past! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeting via email to discuss your mentorship

Check out my message to Jonathan, which is also directed to you. Let me know if a multi-person email thread is okay for you. Best, Anthøny 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil wording

Check your last on the pseudoscience discussion. "Take some predicate logic and call me in the morning" is a comment on the contributor not the topic. "Now that we've ably dispatched your erroneous arguments" is probably not so good either, since it assumes that you are plural (fallacious once) and that your argument somehow resides above, rather than, next to, someone else's. Your logic may appear perfect to you, but that's the beauty of subjectivity; we are all perfect in our own eyes (until we begin seeing ourselves with others' eyes). In short, it would be great if the personal comments would stop. Hgilbert (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not quite what I ask at the top of my page, it is close enough for me to get the gist (I think) of what you find uncivil about the wording. So refactored. Note, however, that my comments are only meant to be "personal" in the sense that you are the only person who is challenging me and I find much of your argumentation to be fairly assailable. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding spreading and personalizing conflict

I don't know if this is a pattern for you, but it appears to me that you are taking a conflict of views in one article as a reason to attack editor(s) who differ from you there in other areas of Wikipedia. In general, this creates the sense of a jihad against an individual. If this has not been a problem in the past, my impression is probably misleading here. If it has been, it might be something to watch out for. Hgilbert (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: calm down

Who are you, and why are you here? have you been contacted by Dreadstar outside of Wikipedia? I didn't see anything on your talk page, but then again Dreadstar and surian were talkign to eachother but not by talk page. Surian being the second admin to block me, after talkign to Dreadstar who i accused of being biased.

"You keep this up you're going to get blocked, perhaps indefinitely. It's not worth it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"

You changed your wording quick enough, why you have to add the uninvolved part? You've already poisoned the well for me because this makes me even more suspicious of yours and his intentions.

Also i only want a ethical treatment and Dreadstar is not giving me it. I have asked he not contact me multiple times and he had acted in a harassing type manner. Yami (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little paranoid when it comes to admins, especially ones i feel are conspiring against me. Yami (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I thought this was excellent, and I shall help in any way to ensure it becomes policy. I thought it left out certain things that might also be included. For example

• I am very keen on having precise definitions in the introduction, and sticking to that definition throughout the article. This reduces the risk of people putting in points of view that are contrary to the commonly accepted understanding of the article subject, but which conform to and arbitrary or vague or not-tight-enough definition given in the intro. (This is a subtle form of content-forking)
• It doesn't really address the problem of 'chameleon science' that I am currently dealing with. This is where all sorts of valid scientific results, views and principles are thrown in to a sort of soup, as though they justified the pseudoscience subject under consideration.

I'll put some material on the essay talk page when I have time. Would you be open to additions to the article, or did you prefer to stick the currently narrow area it covers? There would be virtue in that. Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The soup thing sounds to me like WP:SYNTH, but maybe I'm missing the issue. In some sense, I'm trying to resurrect some of the better ideas of WP:SPOV and WP:SCI that have been thrownout with the bathwater. Adding other points can be done after consensus is achieved that we need some standards for editing articles related to science. I hope that we can acheive consensus on this matter, but the going will be rough. The more people we have discussing ideas calmly and openly the better. The last thing we need is more wikidrama. Anyway, I think the best thing may be to stay active on the talkpage, deal with the problematic issues as they come up and try to accommodate as many editors as possible in order to get some standards that will actually aid in talkpage discussions and editing Wikipedia. I'm hopeful that within a month we will get enough input to be able to see what the directions this proposal will go. I can see options, perhaps, for incorporating these standards at other locations, but the one-stop-shopping offered by a "science standards" guideline/policy is simply too tempting to pass up, IMO. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - it's not really WP:SYNTH as it is described in the policy, which is where you take RS A and RS B and explicitly conclude an unreliable C. What I'm talking about is where unreliable theories or claims are placed side by side with reliable ones without any explicit conclusion being made, so that the reliable claims 'rub off' on the unreliable ones. A bit like a carpet sale I once went to where they were selling crap carpets, with a couple of really good quality expensive ones (with a fake buyer to boot). The same technique is used by real estate magazines where the first few pages are devoted to really high-end properties, and the rest to the crap. No explicit inference or promise is being made, but the idea is that the authenticity will rub off. There is an extreme example of this in Meta-model_(NLP) - if you look past the introduction there are a load of claims about linguistics that I recognise as true. The big lie is that these are anything to do with the pseudoscientific subject under discussion. I'm not sure if this falls under SYNTH or not. Peter Damian (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Oh dear, SA. I reverted a chunk of material that had not been discussed- a very simple revert so that discussion could take place. I was not condescending in that edit summary on the contrary.It was neutral. If you found it so I do apologize. I have added a note on the talk page and you can do whatever you want with it there. My move was simply academic, since I don't know the field and came a cross the deletion you made because I have been copy editing there. A "stinky violation"... SA you have a great sense of humour.(olive (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Chiropractic and antiscientific wording

Re this edit of yours: if you have the time, could you please follow up at Talk:Chiropractic #Antiscientific: suggested rewording 2, which contains several comments dated 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC) about that edit? In particular it'd help to know what you found unclear. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of/for depression

See Talk:Treatment_for_depression#Wait_a_minute.... I think this route is better because is saves the edit history. I'm not sure how to properly delete the current version of Treatment of depression so Treatment for depression can be renamed over it. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is a report regarding ScienceApologist and this issue at WP:AE at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late—it's been closed (quite correctly) as a spurious report. Though it wouldn't hurt to save the peppery language for where it's really needed. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star!

I appreciate your acknowledging the work so far and look forward to your opinion when the work's finished. Many thanks again Professor marginalia (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bates Method

Hi. I notice that on 29 August you made an edit to Bates method including the sentence "Bates regarded the refractive state of the eye as variable, disregarding the scientific evidence that irreversible changes in the shape of the eyeball cause refractive errors". I queried the second half of this, and since then another editor has removed it. I'd just like to ask for the citation of the "scientific evidence" to which you refer, particularly as regards the word "irreversible". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely this [3] shows that you changed "mainstream view" to "scientific evidence", which is the big change which required the citation. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "'mainstream' is a word to avoid because it indicates that the Bates method might somehow be scientific," - so how can you be so sure that it isn't?
• "which all but the most tried-and-true believers acknowledge it is not." - I have an open mind on Bates Method. If there's anything in it, which there might be, it certainly requires more, and more carefully conducted research to prove it. Meanwhile one of the things which makes me think there must be something there is the gross intellectual dishonesty of some of its opponents.
• "The scientific evidence comes from various Opthamology Texts. For example. [...]" - you can hardly expect anyone to be convinced by the mere mention of a textbook, without saying what is said where, and for which I have to pay money to examine on-line.
• "'Scientific evidence' is a catch-all term for the facts elucidated by a huge discipline." - No it isn't. It's a claim that someone has conducted proper experiments which support a conclusion.
• "It's not simply a viewpoint that this is what causes vision loss:" - Yes it is. it may be a correct viewpoint, but it's a viewpoint.
• "evidence-based medicine requires a connection to data and scientific evidence." - This is something of a red-herring, as this phrase refers to diagnosis and treatment in individual cases. But as far as this sentence is concerned, it does apply. The allegation I'm querying is nothing to do with Bates. It's the allegation that "irreversible changes in the shape of the eyeball cause refractive errors". I'm asking for the "data and scientific evidence". Where are they? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. I don't think there's anything I can do about that. However, fortunately, there have been some wise aand useful contributions on the main issue in the Bates method talk page, so if I say anything more on this topic it will be there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

I can see that you've gotten a bit frustrated over this article and some of the claims being made, but I hope you'll agree that your last edit [4] really isn't a good way to handle the issue. Could you please remove that bit and try letting the talk page discussion run its course? Shell ^babelfish 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No thanks needed - I started editing Wikipedia because I enjoyed contributing, a few extra buttons shouldn't change all that ;) Shell ^babelfish 01:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Baiting Martin

[5] - Don't do that. It's vandalism and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You know better than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[6] this doesn't help either.--Tznkai (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed what looks like an edit war breaking out at that page. Strongly suggest backing away from the edit button (I'm leaving this message for both of you). Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Electrohomeopathy

An article that might "interest" you...I just read and didnt know where to start....benjicharlton (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just had an edit conflict with you, but I think I resolved it ok. It was a bit arduous so if you could check my edit I'd be grateful. Yours, Verbal chat 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what you've done with/to Electrohomeopathy. I have left one comment on the article talk page about your new footnotes (currently footnotes 3-6 inclusive). Seem to me to belong in quackery and pseudoscience articles rather than in Electrohomeopathy, because they make broad generic points about unorthodox medicine/quackery rather than specific points about the subject of the article. Thoughts? I did read the referenced articles and couldn't find any specific reference in them to electrohomeopathy in them. If there is and I missed it, apologies. Otherwise, I wonder is the point made without overkill by simply linking to pseudoscience and quackery and including those references there, if they're not there already? All the best Perhaps you could put any thoughts on the article talk page. Brammarb (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentor agreement

Fritzpoll seems to have faded away, so I suppose our agreement won't go ahead as planned. Do keep out of trouble, however. :)
Anthøny ✉ 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stochastic electrodynamics

Do you happen to know offhand how fringey this is? Obviously the bits about extracting energy from the vacuum state are pretty out there, but it looks like there might also have been legitimate research using the interpretation. If you do not know without checking I can scour the references later so do not worry about it, but the article right now is pretty wishy-washy on the matter of legitimacy. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh joy, one of those. Someone dropped in some Phys. Rev. A &c. (also Physics Letters A, but they cannot all be winners) references that I just integrated into the existing text trusting that the original description was reasonably accurate. With legitimate journals in there I did not want to dismiss all of it as utter PS without checking. Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Crick

If you want, I've left some good references in my editing that you could put into articles concerning Crick's early findings of "structure" in the genetic code. I'm currently banned, but the references are good and important in the history of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Faith, Hope, and Love

Clearly, men, women, and children have these three things. It is difficult to understand how these things are explained by Hawking and Darwin. So, I don't understand all the classifications on your user page. On another level, I do not understand how the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or mathematics or music) blew out of a vacuum singularity, went through three generations of stars, and then evloved into us, editing on WP, from primordial soup. Seems a bit unlikely ... Will you consider GDI as a slight possibility in your edits?

I believe that GDI usually stands for "goddamn idiot". Somehow I don't think that this is what this particular syncretist means. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Infinite Energy

Thanks for the heads up on the AFD. I have (politely, I hope!) disagreed with you.

Having an article about the magazine doesn't mean we think that its point of view is correct, by the way. It's full of baloney, but it's well-thought-out, not-unreasonable baloney by people with real education, not just pseudoscience babble. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WOW!

Thanks SA. I invite you to celebrate in the way only us Brits know how.

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion query

I noticed your Afd for Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime and didn't comment (it looks like you say, but it's all over my head). But I was wondering if you'd looked at the physicist Alex Green, linked in the article. I suspect he might be a candidate too. N p holmes (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Quackwatch

Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning. Given your edit history, you should know better at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ScienceApologist, just letting you know that we have placed new editing conditions at the Quackwatch article. One is "do not delete citations to reliable sources", and the other is 1RR. More details are at: Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing. This edit of yours would have been considered a violation,[7] but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may not have noticed that new conditions were in place. So, FYI, --Elonka 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, can I suggest that you look at the reasons articulated on the talk page before applying warnings? Shot info (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail

Thanks, I've left you a message.--Pharos (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig

You do realize I did that photoshop thing seven months ago as a joke, right? And I wasn't consulted about it going into the article. Never intended it for mainspace. I'm just stepping back and seeing where this goes. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

For your DYK suggestion of Sołtan argument, we cannot find an inline reference that verifies the hook. Could you help please? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I'm getting so sick of the fringe-theory POV pushing at this article. Can you help out a bit? New age crap. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your desire to delete article on Original Blessing

ScienceApologist, what brought this article to your attention? It may have importance to users and internet surfers, who know about theology. Since your field is science, how are you interested in theology? Just curious.--Drboisclair (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Drboisclair: There is a consolidation that I am attempting with a sprawling walled garden associated with the New Thought movement. It came to my attention because of the New Thought movement's association with alternative medicine. I figure that if we sweep original blessing up with Matthew Fox, we can begin to stem the tide and keep the problems contained. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate what you are doing! We do need to keep Wikipedia up to snuff because I too would like to see it be more respected in the academic world, and editors like you are taking the time to do this.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Creative Visualization

Dear ScienceApologist, please review Creative Visualization anew to see if your opinion regarding the afd has changed. I have added several academic sources and cleaned up the article substantially. Renee (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To fellow editor ScienceApologist, who is diligently trying to make Wikipedia a learning tool that is more respected in the academic world. Congratulations, Drboisclair (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sołtan argument

On 29 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sołtan argument, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I've started collecting relevant excerpts from reliable sources at User:Vassyana/New Thought. Feel free to make use of the material. Vassyana (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle config

in the spirit of helpfulness, please read the Twinkle config section - Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc#Configuration - to see how to set up twinkle so that it doesn't mark your normal and good faith reverts as minor. you can look at my monobook.js page - User:Ludwigs2/monobook.js - to see it in action. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me on sthg as swopsies?

I left a message at MartinPhi's talk page, don't know if he'll respond to me. I saw that Elonka was around, also MBisanz, who helped out as a mediator on the Solar energy page. Which leads me to asking you a favour, and I will help you out with something in return. Solar energy is GA, and it's been waiting for ages to become FA. Could you help me make the final push? I was going to say it has nothing to do with defeating fringe theories, and I've never raised it on FTN, but actually some fringiness does creep in: a) we have all sorts of people trying to get a mention for their nowhere-near-market prototype technologies, and b) we had a huge long argument about the image that you will see on the page where there are boxes large and small representing solar energy and human energy needs. Consensus was to remove it, after two RfCs and a mediation, but it is there now and I don't quite know why. So your feistiness skills would be of use as well as your general scientific knowledge. What do you think? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Now we're really cooking on gas! ;-) Next thing, I think is to present the technologies in a sensible order. Unfortunately, we have an overlap between the principles behind the technology and the application of the technology. I understand the attraction of seeking one logical organising principle, but I think it's doomed. I'd settle for a commonsense and workable structure. See the recent talk page discussion about "four uses". Don't feel obliged to agree with me on this. I'll be interested in your impression as a newcomer to the article, and I'm open to persuasion about the structure. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The killer argument against the image was that it is a classic way to lie with statistics. Readers don't know how to attribute quantities to volumes in a 2D image. User:Apteva wouldn't accept a bar graph because the energy use figure would be too small to appear (same applies to the dot of course). So we suggested using the underlying table of figures, but of course then the sources would have to be given and the incompatibility of figures from different sources would have been apparent. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. The lead screams out to be edited for what the subject is. I've changed it before and been reverted. It just needs a little bit of finesse as to how to relate "solar power" to "solar energy". There is a lot of history to the distinction, and if you don't mind I'll take the opportunity to relate the gist of it. When I first came to the article it was in a horrific mess. It shifted constantly between discussion of solar in general and photovoltaics in particular. I lifted chunks out and reorganised it in photovoltaics and other related articles. Then other editors arrived and mired the article in a tedious discussion of "there are several ways in which solar power can be classified". I said that most readers did not want to learn about ways to classify it, they just wanted to learn about what it was, but they weren't going to listen to a non-scientist. Then User:Mrshaba came on the scene and put in hours of work to improve the article. He has been in correspondence with the main authors on the subject. He's been meticulour about referencing. Then User:Apteva started editing as an anon, which didn't stop him from constantly hassling and lecturing Mrshaba about WP policy. It was Mrshaba who proposed the name change from Solar power to Solar energy, but Apteva was against, and so was I for a while, although I accepted consensus was against me. As it turned out, the name change was good for the article, as Mrshaba used it to bring in a wider range of techologies and situate them in the context of the science of solar energy. Apteva is a recent changes patroller so not a vandal, but as you noticed he admitted he wanted the article to advance the cause of solar, rather than just describe it. Taking the article back to Wikiproject Physics has brought in good editors but they tend not to hang around long. Perhaps it needs to be done again. I really want to get this one up to FA and then attention can be turned to photovoltaics and the other related ones that need more attention. Many thanks for taking an interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification on Paranormal case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal - it seemed the most appropriate action. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More flies with honey

Regarding Talk:Psychic: I thoroughly agree with the skeptical position regarding psychic claims, but I worry that a dismissive and hostile attitude does more harm than good to the skeptical position. Attacking parapsychologists as "yo-yos who believe in a flat earth" won't help write a Wikipedia article, and it won't help educate the populace about skepticism, either. It makes skeptics look like buffoons, more interested in attacking people than in seeing evidence laid bare.

The way to demonstrate that parapsychology isn't science isn't to berate its advocates. It's to challenge them to present their research program. Science isn't an attitude; it's a practice: a real science has a research program that is actually making progress on uncovering truth, forming and testing hypotheses, and improving the corpus of reliable, available knowledge. That's how biology or physics (or even anthropology or history) work.

If parapsychology is junk (which, it seems to me, it is) then the demonstrated lack of a progressive research program will show this. There's no year-over-year improvement in the corpus of reliable knowledge about matters parapsychological. Hypotheses are not getting refined or discarded. Experiments may be getting done, but they are aimless or repetitive; cumulatively, they do not build towards greater understanding. Why? Because the subject matter is bunk; yes -- but it takes more than mere assertion and insults to demonstrate that.

Insulting the parapsychologists just makes you look scared that they might be on to something. They're not; if they were, they'd have changed the world, the way that medicine or quantum physics have. --FOo (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To continue: Wouldn't it be awesome to live in a world where psychic abilities did exist? If you could go to telepathy school and learn to read minds, or to transmit your thoughts across the world? If industry could hire dowsers to find oil deposits, instead of spending millions on geological surveys? If historians could hold seances and call up the ghosts of Caesar or King Solomon and ask them what really did happen, instead of having to reconstruct it from archaeology and old, unreliable documents?

All the evidence we need that psychic abilities don't exist is that after hundreds of years of trying, the parapsychologists have not come up with even a shred of a reliable technology of them. Even the primitive optics of Galileo's day produced telescopes, which both advanced the research programs of optics and astronomy, and also were of immediate technical use to navigators. The research program advanced. Mendelian genetics were a long way from modern genetics, but still produced techniques of plant breeding that were useful and reliable to agronomists. The research program advanced.

That's why skeptics need to inquire into the research program of parapsychology, instead of just attacking its advocates. If we're wrong, elucidating the research program will prove it; and if we're right, it'll prove that beyond doubt. --FOo (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a Minority Report on that :-/ . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation suggestion received

User:Ludwigs2 has suggested mediation with you and Orangemarlin on my talk. I'm not a mediator, but willing to help if everyone is willing and feel it would be productive. Vsmith (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

Ludwigs2 POV pushing again. Introducing the term "skeptic" for "scientist" is about as POV as one can get. In fact, I contend that it's impossible to be skeptical of scientific reasoning. These individuals are, plain and simple, scientific denialists. Don't let the POV pushers own the conversation. Just MHO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Was that long-distance revert, undoing the recent work on the lead and returning unsourced and dubious content removed for discussion to the talk page, really necessary? Bob (QaBob) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to this edit. I'm not sure how far back you went, but you undid all the work done in the last 12 hours at least. Bob (QaBob) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker added the word "mainstream" and Malcolm has been reinserting it when removed. Originally it said The scientific community outside the small field of parapsychology has not accepted what the field considers evidence of the existence of psychic abilities or life after death, and in 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." taken directly from the article on Parapsychology along with excellent sourcing. Bob (QaBob) 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was all together in the lead before you waded in. Bob (QaBob) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That recent edit to the "mainstream" sentence was great in my opinion, keeping the link to parapsychology, etc. I'm concerned about the use of the word "claim" though, which is on the list of words to be avoided. Bob (QaBob) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my negative comment on the article talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SA, it's looking you've either violated 3RR at the Psychic article, or if not, you're right on the edge.[8][9][10][11] Since there's some ambiguity, I'm not issuing a block, but I am asking you to please limit your reverts on that article. This isn't a formal ban or ArbCom restriction, but if you could limit yourself to 1RR for the next couple weeks, I think it would help matters. For transparency's sake, if you'd like me to make it formal, I can. However, you requested in the past that I should just ask you to do this rather than imposing a formal ban, so here I am, asking. :) --Elonka 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka: Fritzpoll, AGK and I are mentoring ScienceApologist. Any problems, please report to User:AGK or User:Fritzpoll. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)