User talk:ජපස

Bold text==User talk: archives==

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Barnstar for continued diligence

		The Original Barnstar
		I think you deserve another barnstar for your continued diligence. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang

Regarding your recent reverts to Big Bang, what is the relevant section of the talk page? Just curious. Also, be careful about that three revert rule; admins are pretty unforgiving with regards to that one. Best of luck! Isopropyl 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nearly forgot. Did you know that you're involved in a discussion at the administrator's noticeboard? May want to check that out. Isopropyl 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock template

I don't understand why you put that up. You're not blocked. –Joke 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My IP (72.14.194.37) is blocked. --ScienceApologist 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be unblocked now? William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Very strange. There was nothing in the block log for that IP. –Joke 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an autoblock for another user. --ScienceApologist 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I just thought you'd like to know this conversation was going on.--Esprit15d 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

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)

I may as well try to open discussion with you

Re: the Dianetics article. I don't mind talking with you but I would prefer it be productive. Your evaluations of my attempts to get Dianetics introduced seem to me to be in error, but whether or not they are, the subject has not been introduced. Dianetics is an activity. It is a trained listener listening and a person who is willing, speaking to them about their thoughts. I would like the subject to be introduced in a way which all of us can at least agree is not plainly wrong. We have worked and hammered at it for months. ChrisO has appealed to you. I am not attempting to be a doctrinaire. I am not attempting to control, own, abuse or misuse the article. I simiply am working to get the damn thing introduced. Any sane, thinking individual can read the introduction of Dianetics and go to the Dianetics website [[1]] and see the information, "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." and know that Wikipedia has mis-presented Dianetics in the article. I would like the situation resolved. If you have a way of accomplishing that, then cool. If you are going to natter and evaluate and carp and complain, then uncool. The rest of us will try to get the article into good shape. It is up to you but your evaluations of me on the talk page are, in my opinion, way, way off base. Terryeo 13:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

replied on my page where you replied, maybe we can work this out.Terryeo 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice to communicate with you, I've replied on my talk page Terryeo 13:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this comply with A, B,C? "Dianetics is the practice which has a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener. Its practice and theory of the mind were developed by author L. Ron Hubbard."Terryeo 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism that this is two sentences and not one may seem to be nitpicking, but there are reasons that we should stick to a single sentence for a definition. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Moonwhackery

I wanted to apologise for reverting your edit on the Moon conspiracy page. No hard feelings, I just thought it was better before. Guinnog 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice work on the Creation-evolution controversy article. I also appreciate your writing for the enemy there. However, there may be a problem with the citation in support of the "good and evil" dichotomy - see comment on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Scientology

Would you like me to create about a paragraph and post it to that discussion page, or possibly to your discussion page here, or were you thinking the article just needs a bit and I should go ahead and edit that article? Scientology does have a statement it makes about "before the beginning was a cause ..." which I guess fits into myths. Terryeo 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Liked the quiz!

Is certainly worthwhile having right up on the front like that. :p Oh, and I got this:

You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis. Postmodernist 81% Modernist 75% Cultural Creative 69% Materialist 69% Romanticist 56% Existentialist 50% Fundamentalist 38% Idealist 25%

Mathmo 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

CS and physical science

Hi! Would you be kind enough to give me a (short) explanation of why you consider computer science (which is, amongst other things, the science that studies computations) as not being, technically, a physical science.

Thanks in advance! Regards, -Powo

Hi again! Thanks for your kind reply (on my talk page). I am not sure about your claim that Traditionally, computer science is the study of numerical computation as an empirical application of discrete/finite mathematics., at least, if this would be a traditional definition, it seems quite far from what modern CS is: CS is much broader and deeper than that. I find your requirement for no technological prerequisit interesting. I was unaware of this (accepted?) arbitrary (as you say) requirement for physical sciences. Very arbitrary indeed. For example, it seems to me the study of some artificial components, e.g. in chemistry, need some technological prerequisit too, since they do not exist in nature: they are man made. What about supraconductivity? well, etc... I added some comments about stuff like that on the talk pages of natural science and physical science, if you are interested. Also, you may like to envusage computer science as studying Information, which may be considered to exist independently of any technology (although maybe not independently of the human eye on the world, since it is a concept similar to energy. Doese energy "exist"? If so, I beleieve information doese too... Anyway, that's not really the point...). Thanks for the discussion and have a nice day. Powo

Hi! You say: As to the science of information, that would be information science, conceivably one could call that subject the "physical" component of computer science as it may be seen as a branch of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. However, I would say that computer science is considerably more than just information science. I agree! So informatics is physical component of computer science. Cool. Shall we include this on the physical science page?

--Powo 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi (again). You say: "...informatics is technically a sub-branch of physics...". I disagree. It is a subbranch of computer science, and it is related to the physical world. So it all comes down to what meaning we put on the word "informatics". Here is some evidence on why I think informatics is a sub-branch of computer science: (1) the word informatics is almost a synonym to computer science (many computer science departements are called department of informatics, school of informatics, etc...) (2) My first language is french. In french, computer science translates to "informatique", which translates (back to english) to computer science OR informatics! bybye. --Powo 14:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say: CS is not a sub-branch of physical science. However, part of its scope of study falls under the realm of physical sciences (at least, that is my point...). Just like some of it is an engineering discipline (obviously), and part of CS is probably purely a formal science (like logics...). Usually, people simply classify CS as being an engineering discipline, and I find it sad that it is not more widely aknowledged that CS has the almost unique particularity of embracing many fields at the same time. I see physical information as a fairly new concept, which is profound, like energy is! And studying that is doing physical science research (as a practise), and those people studying physical information are, de facto, theoretical computer scientists. Anyway, I see that my POV is being resisted a lot here, and probably there is some truth behind this! Including, probably, historical thruth... Regards, --Powo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for the kind and informative conversation. See you sometimes hopefully. Powo

autoblock

I have replied on my talk page. As I mention there, this is something that requires followup from the developers; in the meantime, a workaround would be to turn off Google Web Accelerator. -- Curps 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin belief

Hi. Can you please explain why you removed the section about Purusha in the Hinduism section of Origin belief? Thanks. --Grammatical error 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Fernandez

I just saw your sectionizing of the article which I wrote and I wanted to tell you that you did a real good job. Take care Tony the Marine 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

If you could look at Cubano's proposed change discussed in the talk page under "Scientific critique of creationism" it would be appreciated. It looks somewhat ok to me, but I'd like you opinion also. JoshuaZ 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW I have no heartburn with your current edit. It appears reasonable to me. Dan Watts 16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the opening section, you apparently like the wording "scientific accounts" while I think "science-based sagas" is more appropriate. Can you think of a compromise description. Dan Watts 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What consensus?!?

You know we where celebrating Lag B'omer yesterday and you went around our backs and made your own consensus. I am sorry mate that isn't call a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Assume good faith, ScienceApologist wasn't going out of his way to do anything (and Lag B'Omer is a sufficiently minor holiday that I doubt he has ever heard of it). Furthermore, there is no issur malacha on Lag B'Omer, so I don't see how his editing then would somehow impair you from commenting/checking on things. JoshuaZ 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for anyone who is reading this who doesn't speak hebrew, "issur malacha" is a prohibition on work which applies on most holidays such as the beginning and end of Pesach and on Yom kippur. This prohibition would among other things, prevent Orthodox jews from editing on those holidays. Lag B'Omer is a minor holiday with no such prohibition. JoshuaZ 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Moon landing

Hello there. I've put back in the See also on the Moon landing article as it is connected to the page and it is a topic which has been requested on many occassions on the article. Some think it was a hoax (I'm not one of them, but I find their so called explanations interesting) and it should be catered for. Ben W Bell 14:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss your edits on the apollo page, but your pov pushing must come second to a neutral article - it's not your personal science apology page. For great justice. 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

???

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. instead of Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

3RR - right back atcha pal!

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --For great justice. 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

On Moon landing conspiracy theory page...

Thanks. You've done good work with this. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You're butting up against WP:3RR in the Apollo hoax page. Please work this out in the talk page, not in edit comments. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your world view?

I went to that What Is Your World View from the link on your user page. Wow, that is the most inelegant quiz I've ever seen, which could give nothing but totally meaningless results. This one cracked me up: Do you think religious dogma and scientific empiricism are steps in the wrong direction? Disagree-----Agree Thats kind of like: Do you think Hitler and Ghandi we're good people? Disagree-----Agree Most of the questions we're like that, questions causing any answer one could give to be only half true. Even the most hardcore reductionist would answer disagree to "Do you believe everything could be understood as fundamental parts", unless they subscribed to the straw man version of reductionism made up by anti-reductionists, but I presume answering "disagree" would be a mark against your reductionist tendencies (I guess the test results lump reductionism with materialism, which is really not justified in itself). Brentt 09:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark matter

Nice ongoing work on the dark matter article! --Reuben 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from harassment

Please refrain from unwarranted harassment to me on my talk page. I do not appreciate it. Thank you and I hope we can be friends. --141.156.24.162 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I understand. I am sorry we quarreled. Can we be companions now? My apologies. --141.156.24.162 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For great justice

I have reported him for 3RR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

You wrote in an edit summary:

rv POV-pusher Ed Poor [2]

What do you mean by this? Are you asserting that I "pushed" a particular point of view somewhere in the article you reverted? If so, please state what POV you think I was pushing. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

You wrote in an edit summary:

rv POV-pusher

What did you mean by this? Are you asserting that I "pushed" a particular point of view somewhere in the article you reverted? If so, please state what POV you think I was pushing. It's not acceptable to simply revert other people's edits to your own POV without discussion. For great justice. 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can't justify that statement with any evidence. Which is why you simply revert other people's edits without discussing them. For great justice. 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, can I request that you tone it down a little please? I am on your "side" in the debate on the content of the article, but there is no call for nastiness here; the article is in fact very good. Well done for your work in helping make it this way. Fgj is wrong, but he is a human being who undoubtedly believes he is acting in the best interests of the project. Thanks --Guinnog 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalking? That's your accusation to try to get away with propogating your nonsense throughout the project? Come back when you have a real complaint, you're scraping the barrel here. For great justice. 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass revert

This needs to be moved to MFD, otherwise it won't go anywhere. Guettarda 00:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation of User:UniverseToday

Hi ScienceApologist. We've talked before regarding User:In great justice. You have also been active in reverting from linkspam posted by User:UniverseToday. I've discovered a systematic pattern of this activity, and posted a request for investigation of User:UniverseToday at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests, if you're interested in taking a look. Thanks. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 03:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you gesture of good faith in withdrawing you afd on Philippe Lheureux

For great justice. 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Supernatural in Creationism

How can you know that there is no such thing as "supernatural phenomena"? Dan Watts 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a global flood would not fit with catastrophism? It must have extremely tight standards for such a catastrophe not to be included. Dan Watts

Making a point

from editting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Your last edits to redshift look very much like you are gaming the system. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't need to make a point if you edited article fairly. You are applying double standards; You are quite happy to provide citations to Web sites for "alternative theories", but are not happy with critisms to "mainstream theories", even if they are from peer revied journals. --Iantresman 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No reply

You did not follow-up on Talk:Creationism#Abrupt appearance. How come? Can the section be re-inserted again or not? --Rtc 04:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive refactoring of talk page

Please do not refactor Talk:Redshift again. This refactoring by you was uncivil. Do not deal with uncivility by engaging in your own uncivility. Be more patient and count on other editors. My concern with taking on the task of refactoring Talk:Redshift was that either you or Ian would engage in disruptive refactoring and now it's happened. If you still would like refactoring to occur on this talk page, you have to stop doing it. Flying Jazz 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You referred to my post at Talk:Redshift (and possibly the comment above) as uncalled for preaching, rude, punitive, condescending, that I came across as uncivil, that I was making insinuations, that I have let my involvement in the dispute get too personal, and that I may want to follow my advice and leave it alone. Your disruptive refactoring led to unnecessary confusion and a waste of my time in addressing a post to Ian when both of us thought that it was material that I had refactored. In my opinion, that called for a post addressed to you that could easily be interpreted by you as preaching. If you find preaching to be condescending then I'll confess to it even though it wasn't intended. I meant to be firm, not rude nor uncivil. My goal was to indicate that I had an issue with your talk-page behavior in harming the ability for consensus opinions to form at Redshift, and I've had related issues with both you and Ian in the past. That directness is the exact opposite of an insinuation. There is nothing punitive about posting in talk pages or user talk pages. And as for the nature and extent of my involvement, that is up to me. I am relieved, however, that you don't seem to be disputing the statement that your refactoring was disruptive. Flying Jazz 02:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I request something of the arbitrartion committee?

You stated here that it's best to appeal to the arbitration committee. How do I do that? Please respond on my talkpage. --ScienceApologist 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a section on WP:RFAR for clarifications; you can stick a note there explaining your concerns, and ask that one of them check into it. I'd reccommend noting that RFCU passed the matter to them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

May crowning

I noticed this article as no references whatsoever. As is it stands no chances at WP:DYK because of it. Just wanted to tell you. Circeus 00:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 25, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article May crowning, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BRIAN0918 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Free plasma resource

Thanks for that, looks like there is a PDF version to download too (see link bottom right [3]) --Iantresman 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Don't forget to fill in the nomination section explaining why you should be an administrator and such. It helps people who aren't as familiar with you get an idea of who you are. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He's right. You might want to state why you are nominating yourself in your RFA or it will not get much support. -- NoPuzzleStranger 03:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 205.188.116.202 (talk · contribs)

Glad that you saw Knowledge Seeker message. I was ready to look up your contribution history and write something. Also please activate your Wikipedia email account. If you don't want to use your main email account then set up one at gmail, yahoo,... Take care, FloNight ^talk 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad you're still such an active editor here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian's two cents worth

ScienceApologist, I was going to email you this privately, but your email address is not specified.

I just opposed your Requests for adminship, and thought I'd give you the courtesy of my two cents worth. I do honestly believe that you could make a very good admin. Your dedication to articles is very good, your background knowledge of astronomy and science of obviously very good too.

However, while I feel you do believe that you are being "as honest as you can", it is from within a traditional astromomically scientific viewpoint which I believe distorts the views from other alternative viewpoints. The Wolf effect is a case in point. You are absolutely right that the Wolf effect is not a cosmological/redshift/gravitational redshift. And if redshift was just defined this way, there would be perhaps no place for in the current redshift article.

But it is clear from the literature that the optics people have their own view of the Wolf effect as a redshift (perhaps with a less rigorous definition), but just as much entitlement as the astronomers to describe it. I am sure that if an optics person were writing the redshift article, they would give the Wolf effect a sub-section commensurate with describing the cosmological/redshift/gravitational redshift. I also don't deny that from an astronomical point of view, the Wolf effect is obscure in the extreme. But arguably, redshift is more of an optics phenomenon, than an astronomical one, even though its recognition with the public is as the latter.

Another example is your description of someone like Arp as a pathological skeptic. I can quite understand why a traditional astronomer might view Arp in this way. But I hope by stepping out of the box, and realising that Arp is employed at a well-known academic institution, who I am sure are well aware of his views, who if they felt that Arp brougth some pathological shame to the institution, would drop him without much hesitation. But they don't. While editors may have their own personal views on Arp, to publically label such a distinguished astronomer and career scientist as pathological... could appear to some as equally pathological.

In other words, my perception of your input is as someone who sees things from only the astronomical point of view, and judges them from that point of view. And that is why I feel that your adminship might be biased. I hope this criticism comes cross in constructive and non-judgemental manner, which is the way it is intended. --Iantresman 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While my father's catastrophism has indeed influenced my outlook, as I am sure does everyone's upbringing, this does smack a bit of the "Communist threat", and the underlying assumption that there is a core motive. It would be like me suggesting that your were a staunch Republican whose views "obviously" influenced your editing. You'll notice that I've never criticised, or I think even commented on your background, except for your choice to be an anonymous, and consequently unaccountable editor with no attributable accreditation; and that's important, because neither one of us should make any edits based on backgrounds, even though it is obviously influential.

It's not for me to re-define redshift (if that's the term you are refering to). But if Emil Wolf says that lab results demonstrate a noncosmological-like and indistinguable Doppler-like redshift, then clearly the optics people have a slightly different view to astronomers. Their view may well be fringe to atronomers, but "the majority of science textbooks" must also include books in optics, not just astronomy.

Thanks for your admin support. I shall have a reconsider. --Iantresman 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mccarthy reference is an analogy, nothing more. With regard to the "considerable risk in presenting minority ideas as more important than they are", I believe this is solely down to how they are presented. The two extremes are (a) mispresenting a view as "the truth" or out of proportion, (b) Not representing a view at all (ie. excluding it). The compromise is somewhere in between, ie. representing a view neutrally, or at worse, acknowledging a view. Our use of language should be able to moderate a presented view.

Regarding catastrophism, I am happy to be up-front about my views of catastrophism, Velikovsky, etc. But like yourself, I also recognise that they have no place in articles such as redshift. But to suggest that there is no criticism of redshift is misleading, and while I can understand the credibility-issue of excluding criticisms from for example, Ceation Scientists, there is no excuse for not mentioning the criticism from the sum of the "fringe" peer-reviewed scientists who regular query it. Regarding my contacting your college, it was merely to check whether you really were a professor there.

Chicago. We have friends in Naperville, so it's not out of the question. --Iantresman 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your inclusionist/exclusionist description is accurate, but subjective. Suppose I exclude a couple of results in my tests because I felt they weren't notable. There's a good chance I'll get away with it, especially if I'm right. If I'm wrong I'm finished.
• By mentioning, for example, Redshift quantization in Redshift, neither of us will be right or wrong on its degree of notability now, then and in the future, and the sentence will hold up. But if we exclude it, and it becomes notable, then it's your call. --Iantresman 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

my example

SA, my example shows how another editor has viewed your discussions as disruptive, and for those it interested in pursuing it further, they can easily find your edits nearby. Is there a rule about only using diff's of a nominee's own edits on RfA? Otherwise I think it is appropriate--ragesoss 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made it more clear by adding another diff and splitting a sentence. I also softened my description of personal attacks, after looking into it more.--ragesoss 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for making me justify and refine my statements. Despite my disagreement with your general approach to controversial topics and admin opposition, I know you do a lot of great work.--ragesoss 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

re:NPA and NPOV

While I believe you, and thats good that you got an appreciation for it, but it might be better to continue working on it for a little while longer and repply in a few months. My advice (for the future) is to go show members of the community that you have the appreciation of policies, not by saying you do, but acting upon it. :) Some of the recent opposition is enough to pull the weight of the RFA fully in side of you not passing and as it stands there is already more oppose than support. It might be better to just pull out early and spare yourself possible hurt feelings and more bad feelings with others. — The King of Kings 17:04 July 07 '06

I've had similar trouble at RFA. :( Trust me, you'll get it it eventually and this is only your first nomination. I'm sure by the time you have proven yourself to the opposition and newcomers alike, then you'll get it when you reapply. — The King of Kings 17:36 July 07 '06

Your RFA (1)

I am REALLY angered as to the reasoning, or specifically the LACK of reasoning, a large number of your oppose votes have given (if they give any reason at all). TruthCrusader 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

An Rfc may be in order, give it another day or so and see what happens. I agree with you though, many of the comments are totally out of order. BTW great quiz, I scored as a Romanticist. TruthCrusader 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry it looks like the oppose votes are swamping support. Its a crime that so many of them are basing their vote on such petty things as "his nom statement isn't good enough". Should you decide to Rfc, rest assured I'll back it 100% TruthCrusader 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FOE

Holy shit, dude, does that guy just follow you around giving you a hard time like some sort of disgusting lamia? That really sucks. Graft 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA (2)

Hi, ScienceApologist. I came to your RFA page to support, but I haven't yet. Not that I suppose it makes much difference to you at this stage, but I think you're an excellent editor, and I also totally approve of self-nominations. I got diverted by TruthCrusader's extraordinary behavior on the page, though, and took time out to write a note to him (and another on the RFA talkpage). Of course I don't blame you for his actions, but it was by going to his talkpage that I caught sight of this post of yours. To me, that's an extraordinary question you ask. You're thinking of filing an RFC on the oppose voters...? IMO, that would be not only self-destructive, but, well, just extremely strange. Since you're an admin candidate I assume you know about RFCs (whatever politically correct fluff is used to define them on the RFC page) and what they're generally taken to mean. (I've never heard of an RC that actually resolved a dispute.) Could you explain what kind of RFC you have in mind? Would it cite all the oppose voters..? For opposing without acceptable reasoning? (Really?) Or have I misunderstood your suggestion? Bishonen | talk 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/F.O.E.

I noticed you were indirectly affected by some recent edits with User:F.O.E. and decided to notify you on his newly opened RFC. Thank you! — The King of Kings 00:41 July 08 '06

Your RfA (3)

Thanks for the nice message on my talk. Yes I'd really like to support you for admin but just can't because of the nom and the reasons stated. Compare your RfA to other sucessful users to see what a good nom is like. As for the long message for my reasons for opposing, well.. I must. Opposing without explanation I find is extremely rude. Please practice tackling vandals and I'll happily nom you in a months time (Yeh, saves you the work ;) ) Might I also suggest you re-apply when you've reached your 10,000th edit as some users with editcountitus (or however you spell it) are more likely to support you then. Regards, Andeh 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

If you read other peoples RfA's you get the idea of what is expected or the 'norm'. It's important to know how to tackle vandalism as a user first before doing so as an admin. Most vandalism is dealt with by simple warnings to ask the user to stop which is why non-admin rc patrolling is needed. It is important that admins understand the processes and policy regarding vandalism.--Andeh 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins need a lot of patience. If you act upon the reasons given under the oppose section of your RfA I'm sure you'll your future RfA(s) will pass. You shouldn't ask me for my opinion/advice though because I've never had an RfA myself yet!--Andeh 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA question

Just FYI, I've posted an optional question on your RfA if you'd like to take a look. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Confrontational tone

It seemed to me that instead of submitting gracefully to the perceptions of those who were voting, you may have been somewhat confrontational in your response to some oppose voters - that was my perception, anyhow. Themindset 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I find comments likes these [4] really passive-agressive. I think others can sense it too. Chill out, don't be so anxious to have the tools, and you will get them. I mean, I feel like you're being passive-agressive towards me, even. Maybe you will characterize this as a misperception of mine, but it's what I see. Themindset 08:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When you message me, and others, the way you do, you give us the distinct impression that you think our rationale is wrong - rather than taking the comments and working with them.. It's off-putting, and the further this exchange stretches, the more off-put i am. Themindset 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You just started your last comment to me with the words "Are you seriously". I'm trying to respond to your questions honestly and openly, please respect that. Themindset 17:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I will take them under consideration. I am sorry I made you feel seriously aghast - that sounds terrible. Themindset

Very odd, this

I'm afraid I cannot understand all of the oppose votes, at least not rationally. If I cast my mind into the realm of the irrational, I can capture a glimmer of the illogic going into those votes, but I dare not tary too long in that dark world of antiscience and bliss for it is rather painful to the intellect. Hang in there. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning for wikilayering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Please observe Wikipedia's policy against wikilayering. Accusing the BBC of being a vanity site, non-neutral or insignificant is wholly unjustified. Please do not abuse wikipedia's policies in a technical matter to push your POV. Thanks.Noodle boy 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning for unwarranted reverts

Please do not engage in reverting without discussing them on the user talk page. This is in reponse to you constantly deleting the BBC link regarding the moon hoax. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Noodle boy 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA (4)

I think you are dead right about the RfA process being flawed, but the level of hostility you have aroused concerns me. If you are so right, you should be able to get your way without all this angst. I've put something down in the RfA, and would consider nominating you another time, particularly if I can get to know you better and can sort out some of the reasons why people are objecting to your current nomination. Stephen B Streater 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should carefully study all the criticism/advice, put it into practice for 3 months and then you will be successful. Tyrenius 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The level of hostility that SA posseses makes him unfit for the nomination.24.7.34.99 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more precise as to what you mean by "criticism and advice"? For example, I had one justify their vote because I reference WP:BITE in reference to me even though I've been at Wikipedia for years. I get the impression that this reader never bothered to check if WP:BITE deals with subjects other than users who are new to Wikipedia. I pointed this out the user, but I don't think this is what you are suggesting, so if you could provide some clarification I'd be most appreciative. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is what I'm suggesting. I can't be more precise, because I have been precise: "all the criticism/advice". BITE is a good place to start. It is specifically for newcomers (or people who've been on wiki for years or, in a special case, new admins). However, it was pointed out in your RfA that if you see yourself in this way, it does not bestow confidence that you are an experienced wikipedian, able to meet the rough and tumble and deal with it through discourse. I would certainly not dream of citing BITE on my behalf (even as a new admin), only regarding treatment of those who clearly didn't know the ropes. If I had a problem in that regard I would address it directly.[5] You might find it worthwhile to contrast my first (self-)nom with my recent one, as I feel there are some similarities in your current position to my earlier one. Tyrenius 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't reference "BITE" on my behalf. I referenced bite in a discussion about the RfA process and I honestly don't understand the issue. I felt bitten because I wasn't a member of a wikiculture that valued certain unwritten rules more highly than the ones stated on the RfA pages. I was saying on the talkpage that if there are customs that people should follow in their RfAs, it is only reasonable that we are clear about them otherwise voting against someone for not knowing what the unwritten rules are looks like biting. If there is a rule about not self-applying "bite" then we should write it. But I'm a newcomer to RfA, a potential new admin, and I felt bitten. --ScienceApologist 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For a scientist that is not very logical, I'm afraid. "I didn't reference "BITE" on my behalf ... I felt bitten ... self-applying "bite" ... I'm a newcomer ... I felt bitten". Please don't explain it to me, however. You're getting there: "a wikiculture that valued certain unwritten rules more highly than the ones stated on the RfA pages". That is correct basically. When you understand that Wiki is not science and not law, it will work much better for you. It is this phenomenon known as "consensus", achieved by participation of editors and something that changes over time and can also be localised, so there's no point looking at an RfA from early 2005. This "consensus" was a new one on me, but if you want to operate successfully in the wikisphere it is imperative to get the hang of it. As you state "I'm a newcomer to RfA". If you are interested in adminship, I suggest you become an old hand at RfA, by dint of which you will acquire the knowledge that people now think is deficient. Or you can expend a lot of energy trying to turn back the sea... Tyrenius 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow, a barnstar, thanks! I didn't expect that. I wonder if I should go make insufficiently researched comments in other discussions to get more awards! :-) Thank you, I appreciate it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos on trying to reform and/or clarify RfA. When my RfA failed I was greatly disappointed in Wikipedia, and so frustrated I couldn't continue editing for a while. I am happy to see you are not so burdened, and are actively seeking change. I've read some of your comments, and would like to ask that you contact me when you need a supporting vote. -- Ec5618 14:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Though of course not in a way which would be canvassing for support, which would no doubt be very unpopular. Stephen B Streater 19:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As you say, of course not. And since it should be obvious that this is not what I meant, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. Is this an issue?

For the record, I am voicing support for several opinions expessed by ScienceApologist over the past days, and am suggesting that I would like to be included in the process of changing RfA. Should a vote be called, I would like to vote, as this issue has irked me. I would like to help. -- Ec5618 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

SciApo

Got here fine. The regular routes for finding UserTalk still does not accept your name. Re: inflaton--well spotted. Used spell check when I saw a handful of typos--not the best choice User:Malangthon July 12, 2006 SPT

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter

Yes, I have been following the discussion on the Talk page. There has been a lot of opposition to these changes, and the usual process for policy and similar pages is to propose a major revision on the Talk page if there is opposition. The revision I made tempered changes made since July 4 (see [6]), tending to be conservative. —Centrx→talk • 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that your RFA is closed and there's not even a hint of conflict of interest), would you like to engage in some controversy-free (hah!) discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter about the changes you'd like to see there? Or have your concerns been alleviated? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Condolences

Sorry to see how your RfA is turning out. Personally, I think a lot of people are mistaking a clinical, detached tone for a "confrontational" tone simply because you're not grovelling and rolling over on your back or something. I've seen nothing wrong with how you've handled the inexplicable (to my mind) blizzard of opposition to your nomination. Good luck on your next try. Kasreyn 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ditto David D. (Talk) 04:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't make it to admin. I was actually considering voting for you, as I'm sure you can be "trusted with the mop" for minor vandalism. I regret being one of the people you've had conflicts with. I myself did not handle those conflicts well, and I'd like to give you a long overdue apology.

I was wrong to block your account, over an interpersonal dispute between you and me. There was no excuse for that, I'm sorry for my abuse of power, and I promise never to do so again in case I ever regain sysop rights.

I admire your dedication to science, and believe it or not, I share it. Our only real point of disagreement is over Materialism; if you could edit articles neutrally which touch on this aspect, then I'm sure you next RfA will go better. :-) --Uncle Ed 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed speaks from experience. Had he been able to edit more neutrally, he might have been able to retain his own adminship. As I have never known you to edit in any other fashion, however, I am unclear as to why he would be placing this advice here, rather than on the page of someone who shares his difficulty. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good point. Of course, now that we know where Ed stands on materialism (it's evil, positively evil), we can probably guess that his edits on the subject mightn't quite fit within the parameters of NPOV. •Jim62sch• 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey... while I'm sure you have a point, and maybe even some legitimate grievance with Ed, the above apology is one of the nicest things I've ever seen him say at Wikipedia. Such cordiality should be applauded, not used as an opportunity to get in a cheap shot or two. I don't personally agree with Ed's philosophy but I admire anyone with the guts to make a sincere apology when they've wronged someone. Kasreyn 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we have differing definitions of "sincere" and "apology" (see mea culpa). Apologia is more apropos. •Jim62sch• 00:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Being told that "Your next RfA will go better" is probably not at all comforting, so I'll just wish you well. -- Ec5618 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry your RfA didn't go well. I think you do more good than anyone else on Wikipedia keeping creationist, anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific bias out of articles, and I don't understand how you manage it all without going nuts. But to be frank, I have a hard time seeing how being an administrator would help your editing, and to echo User:Dragons flight on your RfA, editors who are attract conflict are not the best candidates for adminship. That's not a criticism: Wikipedia needs more editors with your skills and persistence, and I hope you continue contributing as much as you have been. –Joke 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the opposers says on his user page his hobby is studying " Science, because I want to be scientist in the future.......... I'm also interested in Astrology, something that tells about fortune of the day". Quick, laugh before you cry. Moriori 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I laughed...the crying will come later when I become morose about the future of science. •Jim62sch• 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Balance

What did you mean by this?

promoting a creationist ideal of "balance" in scientific subjects

I'm not interested in any "creationist ideal" of balance. Creationists want to elevate their faith (which is irreproachable and therefore immutable) to that of science (which is reproducible or accepts correction).

I'm interested in describing where Creationists disagree with science, which (I think) is in accordance with NPOV.

Same with legal topics. Many people think Bush shouldn't be holding gitmo detainees as "unlawful combatants", but they shouldn't be allowed to push their POV at Wikipedia, should they? Shouldn't articles relating to gitmo and Iraq and terrorism include the Bush administration POV?

Isn't including diverse points of view in fact, required by the NPOV policy? But you deleted an entire section on how some people feel about science from the Fossil record article because it was (as you put it) "POV pushing", as if following NPOV was somehow a violation of it! What a paradox.

Or did I misconstrue your remarks? I'm not looking for a fight, just trying to understand. Help me out here, buddy. :-) --Wing Nut 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the link on my talk page. I followed it to Larry's big reply where I read this:

• Lee says: "General articles on biology, on the other hand, should simply treat evolution as uncontroversial, because no serious biologist disagrees, and failure to do so compromises understanding of the subject." I think this is wrong on two counts. First, while evolution is uncontroversial among serious biologists, it is controversial among an alarmingly large portion of the general public; you do them and yourselves no favors by ignoring this controversy.

Sounds like including a tiny bit at the end of Fossil record, about the controversy over it, accords with Larry's view. --Wing Nut 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion

Nice work -- I think we're getting there!

So long as we don't trip over each others refinements or anything, that is :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Elerner has taken to whitewashing his own bio page again, I'm not sure what to do next and thought I'd ask you since I see you've had a few run-ins with him in the past too.--Deglr6328 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're already well into an RfC with Eric Lerner. See Talk:Eric Lerner for more. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that will work. He's incessantly reverting using IPs and the last anyone looked at that RfC page was months ago. He should've been banned back last November. --Deglr6328 04:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in flight

Your edit comment "sockpuppets in flight, afternoon delight" made me LOL, as the kids say these days. Thank you very much. I also appreciate your bringing Metric expansion of space to the attention of the Wikiproject Physics talk page. I found a good place to link to it on Bogdanov Affair, and I have a couple references to add once my day job stops getting in the way and I can root through my library.

Happy editing. Anville 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tim Smith 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

N.B. User:Tim Smith posted an identical comment to User talk:Byrgenwulf at 18:45 UTC 18 July 2006. Anville 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

I removed the end of the reverted sentence because I read that sentence as stating that many people hold two contradicting ideas as both being true at the same time. I believe that the sentence should be rewritten if it intends to convey that those that hold the belief stated in the first part of the sentence are unaware of the last part of the sentence. Dan Watts 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Creation-evolution controversy

If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some information (or reference) concerning my complete misunderstanding of time and space scales. Dan Watts 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello ScienceApologist, I'm Aeon from the Mediation Cabal. Wing Nut has requested Mediation in order to settle disputes over Fossil record. Please respond back to me if you are willing to talk this out in Mediation. The Mediation Cabal is informal so there is nothing to lose. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. I will inform Wing Nut of your response. thank you for you time. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your help with the Elerner page, what with finding the statements from Penzias and all. I appreciate it. It was getting kind of lonely over there!--Deglr6328 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Don't edit other users' user pages, especially when you are creating the page to attack them. [7] Mrtea (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Astrology mess

Hi, could you take a look at the astrology page again? Aquirata is vandalising it by repeatedly editing without consensus and POV pushing. Could you give your opinion on the talk page? I would like to establish that his edits, such as removing the reference to pseudoscience, are against consensus.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't call my revert a tit-for-tat edit. I was specifically doing so on Astrology without consideration for other articles. I'm reading the talk page and there is no consensus, or merit, for adding Category:Superstitions to this page. Please don't insult those of us highly intelligent individuals who choose for whatever reason to have belief in things that you might not. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tolman

Joshua, I just finished editting Tolman surface brightness test. Would you mind taking a look to make sure I didn't write too much nonsense? Thanks. --Art Carlson 11:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Electric Universe again...

Thanks for jumping on the Z-pinch stuff -- it has been sapping my will to edit. Here we go again... zowie 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have time

Talk:Age of the Earth JPotter 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil

This edit: "People who parade about pseudoscience in place of actual science are irrational" is insulting and degrading. Please have some civility and stop reverting this article in contrast to the talk page. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, SA is not uncivil, but is instead assertive about objectivity. ... Kenosis 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, Bastique, psuedoscience is irrational. What would you have him say? Its like telling an editor "murder by axe is violent" is uncivil, please find a euphamism for "violent" as some people find this word too strong and accusatory. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Science

Just wanted to point out recent goings-on at Relationship between religion and science. I definitely didn't want to deal with the current irrationality singlehandedly, and no one else is attentive at the moment. Thought you might like to think about quickly checking in there. ... Kenosis 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice cleanup on the intro, SA. I think they represent an improvement to the lead. What had troubled me was this diff which I can't stave off myself as the person supporting it is obviously looking to bait someone into a contentious exchange. I removed once, didn't talk about it except to put it on the talk page for analysis, and it's since been replaced. ... Kenosis 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit to Creationism: (see diff)

I've reverted it with

1. an edit summary explaining the reason; and,
2. an even longer and more specific explanation at talk:Creationism

Can we discuss this? --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

email

Email me, please, and consider turning your email option on - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese creationism

can you explain your reason to delete Chinese creationism from template creationism2 by your commentary:no, I'm sorry, this isn't Chinese creationism"? I especially am curious about what you think about the chinese creationism？what kind of chinese creationism you think should qualify definition chinese creationismKsyrie 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the definition as follow 'In many religious traditions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole were created by a supreme being or by another deity's supernatural intervention. ' can u explain which criteria chinese creationism didn't meet to qualify it as creationism？Ksyrie 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

considering I didn't receive no your suggestion or idea about Chinese creationism, I beg leave to restore my edition.Ksyrie 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to settle this problem, I hope you can redefine the creationism to the an active promotion of an origin belief that is in contradiction to or an augemntation of scientific consensus and make a clear distinction to other orgin belief？ So others won't fall into the same controversy Ksyrie 13:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion of space

Hello, and thank you for writing good articles that aren't about TV programs, pop songs, anime, manga, etc., but instead are about things that matter. I'm sorry (but not so surprised) to see the welcome that the article got at "Good articles". I do think that there are ways in which it can be improved, but I'm certain that direct "help" from a physics-challenged person such as myself isn't one of them. I've therefore instead commented in the talk page and (via embedded SGML comments) in the article itself. I hope that my comments aren't all asinine. Go go rational skepticism! -- Hoary 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark Matter

I'll leave the page as-is for now to avoid a juvenile revert war. I'm well aware of what a theory is, my comment was related to wikipedia's view of weasel words. Please review and contribute to the discussion on the discussion page for that article. CPitt76 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello I'm Aeon. I am representing Iantresman has his advocate per his AMA Request. Please review the following link and reply back on my talk page (The AMA Request) Thank you Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm requesting a reply back on this matter and Iantresman's adovcate. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou but I will require your verison of events please plus any information you have that supports it so I may best advise my Advocee Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmm I see. Ok I would recommend Medation in this case if you would be willing of course. I will make the same suggestion to Iantresman as well. In this case formal Medation would most likey be the best way to go. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Raisinbread.gif

I have restored it. It looks like you mistakenly tagged it with {{NCT}} when there is no image at Commons with that name. Can you figure out what that tag should have been? :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

helldiver

Hi - why did you redirect Helldiver to Grebe? There is no explanation of why in the article; in fact, the word is not used at all. I will delete the redirect unless you feel there is some reason to retain it. If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article.

I changed Helldiver from a simple redirect to a disambiguation page as it was the name of at least two types of US military aircraft.Michael Dorosh^Talk 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definition Art LaPella 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Halton Arp and creationism

Would you be aware of any good references (other than internet forums) that demonstrate that Halton Arp's theories on QSO's are being used to promote creationism/intelligent design? This would be good material to post in the Halton Arp article. George J. Bendo 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Life the universe and everything

I was not offended at all - just very aware that we were going round in circles. I always find it a good idea is to pull back and spend some time thinking as usually I just need to adjust my perspective to see what I'm not getting. I may not agree but at least I understand! I also take your point that I may be out of date as I'm not a cosmologist - just aware of how these things are presented in journals and at conferences. My only real concern initially was that a line had been crossed that allowed theistic and naturalistic theories to stand side by side under the banner of a scientifically recognised term that has no basis outside of wikipedia. I think the current suggestions by you and Astrobaynes have the makings of a great article so will be pleased to help however I can. Sophia 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucaas on Talk:Modern geocentrism

It is clear that this user won't give up.[8] I suggest that from now on we just ignore his ramblings on the talk page. --Lambiam^Talk 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my accidental deletion here.--Roland Deschain 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Some rather serious problems with your editing of the Eric Lerner article were reported here. It is one thing to work all points of view into an article and quite another to systematically defame and decredit the subject. Whether or not you agree with the research has no bearing and should not influence your editing. I would appreciate it if you would avoid editing the article until you can divest yourself of the POV problems you've been showing. It would also be great if you could try to be more civil with others. I'm sure you can find ways to disagree without being rude about it. If you continue to edit the Eric Lerner article in the manner shown by this report, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Shell ^babelfish 11:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for the rest of this conversation. Shell ^babelfish 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. That's a horrible block summary - it should read more like "continued disruption of an article for more than a year, regardless of consensus, ScienceApologist reverts to his preffered revision every single day in a slow moving edit war - discards sources like IEEE in favor of a blog to insert a negative spin on the article, in search of truth with casualities to verifiability along the way". Also see futher discussion. Shell ^babelfish 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked SA. This block was not warranted, and those SA was engaged in are well-known pseudoscienc POV pushers. Please look a deeper into the conflict next time. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I wasn't trying to be a bitch or be nasty about this in any way. I was concerned over some edits and discussion that basically boils down to circumventing policy in order to achive goals which you feel very strongly about. I've got some suggestions, which you're free to ignore, but which might help in resolving the issues:

• Regarding the blog reference. It currently only says "http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/doubt-and-dissent-are-not-tolerated.html Preposterous Universe" - perhaps if you indicated the author and his credentials as you pointed out on ANI it would alleviate the concern about it not meeting the criteria for reliable sources.
• "Visiting astronomer" vs. "invited to visit" - since you're basing your edit on "I know..." that really amounts to original research. I see why visiting astronomer, which confers some kind of special privilege at the observatory is misleading. I think invited to visit also swings a bit too far the other way; sounds a bit like someone showed him around for a tour. Maybe a compromise, based on your reference - something akin to "used (or allowed the use of?) the European Southern Observatory in Chile for a brief period to work on his theories".
• Finally, the edit warring. Perhaps some other editors from the debate at Talk:Plasma cosmology or even editors from other related articles could be brought over to help form a consensus and avoid the blanket reverting.

I intended to help cool down the editing dispute, not to punish you for trying to do the right thing. Just don't lose sight of the big picture. Shell ^babelfish 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I support your right to disagree with my actions, but can we please not have the little "hasty administrator" digs? Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it. --ScienceApologist 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in...

Wikipedia:Expert Retention, and the proposed policy Wikipedia:Tendentious editors --EngineerScotty 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

UserTalk: ModernGeocentrism

This issue of removing work from the talk page is really quite small minded of you.

Four editors have tried to resolve the issue with contributions about Inflation, the displacement from galaxy movement and BB. Your insistent reverts of the talk page tell me more about your need to remove your embarrassingly poor argument than about what the policy is. Four editors have seen fit to argue the points, so it is clearly not entirely and unmistakably irrelevant. If this is the way you go about your work and you are a scientist, it is no wonder that science is in such a bad state at the moment. ***ism has more in common with the kind of science you would like to perpetrate and is far far away from the noble origins it once claimed.

What I am talk about is not irrelevant, the section within the article on Modern Geocentrism concerns the scientific point that states "there is no special position". This is the issue I was talking about, so you see it must be relevant since it is long accept that "special position" is relevant and that discussion of whether or not an observable universe centred on earth is an issue aught be covered, if only to decide in the end that it does not give any "special position" to earth but merely to any observer. For a reader such clarity would be useful since otherwise they may see the other wiki pages that regularly mention the observed universe as a "sphere centred on earth" and take it to be a contemporary form of geocentrism. The Horizon problem is relevant, the horizon implies a centred sphere. Either way this is of some moment and should not be just obliterated and censored frmo a talk pageLucas.

Modern Geo

Though I am not an admin, I have been monitoring this situation (mainly because I had a recent submission ahead of yours and watched the page). If I were either of you I would be careful about this whole situation because you both have been caught in an "edit war" which is just as bad as 3RRV. I've seen Admins punish the user that submitted the request because they were taking part in an edit war. Even if those reverts were in good faith. Just be careful that it doesn't backfire on you. I also read the discussion on the article and even if it is irrelevant to the article, it should not be removed from a talk page. If you want to refactor to the user page there is a proper way to do so and simply erasing the information wasn't the best solution as it caused an edit war. Bignole 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_geocentrism&diff=prev&oldid=75961704 is a removal of info from the Talk Page. Even if you moved it to his page, you still removed it without summarizing it for other editors that may come in later with the same state of mind. The real point behind a refactor is to still keep the information but slim it down so that it doesn't take up as much space. It still needs to be summarized in the original Talk page, with a link to the details/furthered discussion placed at the end. The only exception is when it is "completely and utterly irrelevant" which is really wasn't. Something "utterly irrelevant" would be like discussing Spider-Man 3 on the Modern Geo page. Whether his discussion has bearing on the page or not, it was not utterly irrelevant to the topic. Bignole 01:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw you moved it to his page, but there is still a guideline on how to properly perform a refactor. Three editors cannot simply dismiss discussions as "completely irrelevant" on a whim. Since you know about refactoring you know there is a proper way to perform it, and simply deleting information from it's original spot is not it. That is what caused this edit war in the first place. No one likes to see editors engaging in this type of behavior (i know, because I have fallen victim to it myself with other users that were in disagreement with me over something). Lucas brought a topic to the discussion page, it was discussed and consented to be not appropriate for that article. That does not mean it was "completely irrelevant". You must assume good faith with other editors. It's clear that Lucas was not intending to add irrelevant info to the article, but rather include something he felt was relevant. You and your fellow editors of the page decided it wasn't, but your decision not to include it does not qualify it for "completely irrelevant" data. Even so, there is a guideline for refactoring, as it states Here. I only bring this up in an effort to prevent another incident where it may cause another problem. Bignole 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, about the discussion at hand being left. I was misreading what was being taken out, it had a similar title. But what is clear while reading that is a level of civility that was not being used. Lambiam telling Lucas to "shut up" is one example. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, because it's clear that he was merely trying to be annoying because he was out voted on his request, but there still needs to be some etiquette involved. Just becareful of participating in edit wars, even with stubborn and abusive users. Admins won't care if you are in the right. Bignole 02:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Underconstruction tag

I think if you leave {{underconstruction}} on too long without making any modifications, the tag loses its meaning. Therefore, I generally remove the tag if the article has not been edited for a week. While this is not official policy or even (yet) a consensus, I do think that it is necessary for the tag to not become meaningless. --Nlu (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The notice is only meant to be a friendly heads up that a full review is coming and to give time to prepare. It is not a full review in itself, which with the article's current state, would probably result in a de-listing. I think it's most everyone's desire to keep good articles rather then de-list them which is why the heads up is coming. I think there would be more agitation if you woke up one morning and found the article that you worked so hard on was suddenly de-listed due (in part) to a tightening in criteria. We have no desire to drop anything out the blue, hence the time and effort that is going into giving the articles due notice. It simply being fair. Agne 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to Assume Good faith

SA, I may or may not be the particular GA reviewer who does the re-review on your articles. What you interpret as threats is simply a notice. My only purpose is to make you aware of a criteria change that will affect the GA status of the article. It was a Good Faith effort to bring the criteria and the change to the editors attention and to give them ample time to look at the article and see how it stacks up. In futher Good Faith, I pointed out that area that will need the most attention. (In this case the lack of in-line citations). The number of in-line citations is only the number needed to statisfy wP:V. If, in your assessment as an editor, the number an article currently has is fine...then okay. Leave it as so. However, your article may very well be de-listed when a full re-review is giving. My only desire is to make you aware of that. I do have to say your remarks are quite incivil and I recomend you assume more good faith and maybe take a moment to cool down. Agne 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The warning tag you are leaving on my page is very incivil. I will give you a few moments to reconsider and remove the tag before I seek Admin guidance. Agne 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen or looked for that tag and I'm not now going to look at Agne's talk page (though I'm an admin and would respond to any request by him to look at it). However, I urge you to look again at the thrust, rather than the perhaps less than optimally phrased first expression, of what Agne is asking for. For, details aside, his/her main point does seem reasonable. The article has footnotes at two places, and it has a short list of references. There's no indication of how any of the references support or further explain the article. It would I suppose be rather easy for a physicist-author either to add a small number of footnotes (each of which need not and probably would not say that precisely X is supported by precisely Y, but could instead illuminate the provenance of claims and ideas and help the inquisitive) or to add a brief description to each of the references, describing roughly how it has contributed to the article and what level of physics and/or maths is needed in order to benefit from reading it. -- Hoary 08:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ........... PS when I wrote that, I hastily overlooked the list of external links. I chose two, more or less at random, and added a short and feeble description. Then I noticed that a third had a typo so I did that too. (All three were -- merely by coincidence? -- very low-level.) Quite aside from the demands rightly or wrongly made of "Good Articles", I think that such descriptions (preferably made by physicists rather than dumbos like myself) are helpful, unless of course they really are very easily inferrable from the titles or URLs of the articles. -- Hoary 09:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page; I replied there. -- Hoary 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

nomination for adminship

Hi ScienceApologist -- I would like to nominate you for an admin position. Are you interested in accepting? Please let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK -- the nomination is up: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ScienceApologist2. I believe I've done that right. Can you now take care of the rest? Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 23:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We're live! Good luck! Ironically, I'm off to proof my alternative to inflation ;). And have a few beers; will check in tomorrow. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've asked a question on your RfA - perhaps you would like to reply? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey SA -- looks like a pile-on from your friends. ;) Let me know if you want to withdraw the RfA and I will close it out. Sorry to drag you into this -- I had more faith in the process. Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to vote for you before you for good reasons withdrew. I still have some optimism left, that things will sort out the right way. Remember the Reddi mess where initially you've got a block and not much hope was seen to get rid of Reddi. And now it is a valuable precedent to handle cranks. --Pjacobi 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry what happened to you at the RfA; your position was so obviously distorted and so wantonly mischaracterised that it's offensive; that said, however, allow me to offer one thought. I think those that have been going in plastering citation-needed tags are doing so out of a misplaced - highly misplaced - sense of what constitutes good practice without having thought through what they were doing. You are right to be annoyed, but I strongly suspect that the underlying reason was/is, to quote Johnson, "ignorance, madam, sheer ignorance." They are almost certainly acting in good faith and if an effort is made to continue to explain calmly why such an impulse is misguided and detrimental I hope that we can find consensus. Meanwhile, I think the contributions made by you and the others that have worked on these articles here are exceptional and ultimately the quality of this family of articles will speak for itself. I would be happy to support your RfA should you accept again in the future. Eusebeus 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, bless his heart, closed out the page one second before I would complete the edit Summary, so I am copying here what I said. --Rednblu 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. User:ScienceApologist demonstrates in his long and outstanding record my first priority for an admin--the ability and commitment, though difficult at times, to argue the application of policy without resorting to ad hominem fallacy. And though SA and I have half the time been on opposite sides of arguments over what WP:NPOV requires, I have enough experience working with and against SA to know that we could pick some 0 <= RAND() <= 1 between our give-and-take positions to get a workable consensus that benefits Wikipedia in the long run. Hence, I thoroughly support SA here and his attitude even though I know this support is moot and futile in the face of the destructive localized consensus faction arrayed against him here. --Rednblu 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the outcome. I'd have been in the support column if I'd realised in time. Guettarda 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt that you had to withdraw. I like to investigate candidates I haven't previously encountered in detail, so didn't get round to voting, but what I saw of your contributions was clearly positive. I hope this experience doesn't put you off editing as Wikipedia needs more editors of your calibre. Espresso Addict 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. A few hours ago I woke up and turned on the computer with the intention of commenting on your careful reply to my very own time-wasting question in the RfA. Well, that question turned out to have wasted more of your time than I realized last night. While I shan't hide certain reservations (see our raging arguments elsewhere), I'm very much in favor of having WP run by free-thinking scientists (as opposed to rutted fantasists, etc.). But of course WP isn't run by its admins, who merely have a small number of minor conveniences for doing the kind of thing that qualified writers on physics really shouldn't have to bother themselves with in the first place, plus the occasional inconvenience of being asked to help in affairs that are almost invariably tiresome. So adminship, or not, is no big deal. Back to writing good stuff! -- Hoary 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A thought

Sorry to see your RFA went away so quickly. It occurs to me that lightning-rod candidates such as yourself will tend to attract the oppose pile-ons early in the "game". I believe I opposed you the first time, but was considering supporting this time, and hadn't made up my mind by the time you pulled out. I'm not saying you were wrong to withdraw, but if you'd given it more time, it's possible the tide would have turned (ideally I'd rather see a comment/question period followed by a straw poll, rather than this free-for-all, but that's a discussion for another time...). Maybe something to consider if you stand a third time; it also shows the temperment/perseverance people like to see in admins, to be able to withstand sometimes withering and ill-founded criticism with aplomb. Best regards and thanks for all the article edits you do. -- nae'blis 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, a much better statistician than I am. I was more thinking along the lines that some of your opposers might change their minds, but you did what you feel is right. It's probably healthier to be doing articles rather than admin-work around here anymore, in any case... -- nae'blis 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your cite position

If you have the reference at your side, what's the big deal about typing in the book and the page number?

If you're Stephen Hawking, and you're having trouble typing because of your disability, I'd fight for the policy to be changed, allowing you to have software that automatically inserts <ref>Because I say so. Stephen Hawking</ref> after every period that's followed by a space.

But "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" doesn't appear to list "ScienceApologist". Guess I'm not alone in thinking you're a mere mortal, like the rest of us. Boy, that must really be a bummer for you to be treated that way. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. If you do make personal attacks, please make sure to cite reliable sources. For example, it was decided some time ago after discussion on the subject that Who's Who is not, in general, a reliable source of information on the notability of a scientist (from the BDORT conflicts, I believe). Furthermore, I cannot find any source for the idea that ScienceApologist is ScienceApologist's actual name, or that people consider him to be anything other than mortal. --Philosophus ^T 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I don't get it. Why should you be exempt from following Wikipedia policies?

"What's the big deal about inline-citing 100 references?" That's my point. You spend minutes finding a source and writing a sentence. Spending another 10 seconds to type in the book and page number is not a big deal.

"Why don't you try it sometime." I do it all the time. Earlier this month, I did 52 citations for the Johnny Appleseed article. Took me a couple of hours, on a couple of days, because I had to find the sources. When I write new articles, though, I add citations as I write. which means that it's no big deal. The Lancaster County, Pennsylvania article has 142 citations, most of which I added, but it was no big deal, because I added the cites as the content was being added.

Most people who object to citing sources don't have any sources. That's acceptable at GeoCities, but not at Wikipedia. Zero content is preferable to questionable content. That's why the official policy is that any editor can delete unsourced material with no other explanation necessary. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world

Precicley the opposite here. We are object to citing sources because we have hundreds of sources. --Salix alba (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to provide hundreds of sources for each fact. One reliable source per fact is sufficient to meet the verifiability policy. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which I think leads us to Walkerma's chemical solution. We can find one text book which will backup 90% the of the references. So, does it help to fill the article with a lot of repeated references to the same work? The second question is then which of the 100 textbooks do we choose? --Salix alba (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it help the user if he knows where the information come from? In the opinion of WP:V, yes. In some cases, the citation will be to the same page, and thus the same reference can be used. That's why the software allowed you to use the name attribute for the ref tag; if you use it a second time, you simply specify <ref name=whatever /> instead of providing full details each time. But in most cases, different pages will come into play, so you won't have that many repeated references. As to which book to cite, wouldn't it make sense to use the book you used as a source in writing the article? If you have trouble picking out one to use as a source in writing the article, I suggest you consult a Magic 8-ball. Or see Buridan. He has a beast of burden that may be willing to help you make a decision. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Information doesn't "come" from this single textbook. It is general knowledge and is verifiable by many textbooks. It's this kind of amateurish research program that has led to the idiocy of over-referenced articles in the first place. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We can find one text book which will backup 90% the of the references. Splendid. So, does it help to fill the article with a lot of repeated references to the same work? No. Instead, you do either or conceivably both of two things: (i) have a single discursive note near the top of the article (perhaps at the end of the first paragraph) saying that the ideas summarized in the article are argued for in one, two or three books; (ii) list these two or three books in "References" together with brief descriptions of their relationships to the article. The second question is then which of the 100 textbooks do we choose? Gee, I don't know. You're the physicists; I'm not. But allow me to bring in a partial analogy from natural-language syntax, something I do happen to know a bit about. Suppose I set out to write an article on what's called "Minimalism" (in syntax, more than a mere marketing slogan). The fundamental idea goes back to Chomsky; I dutifully cite the relevant works. But these are impossibly difficult for anyone bothering to look this matter up at WP, so I add a note saying that much or all of this can be read up in much more accessible form within Radford's English Syntax. If someone challenges this, saying that such-and-such has no backing within that book, I reach for Radford's Minimalist Syntax (actually an augmented edition of English Syntax) and cite that. If another editor or reader then thinks I'm showing favoritism or whatever, he or she is free to add to my first note a recommendation of Haegeman and Guéron's English Grammar. Or if somebody objects to the anglophonocentricity (?!) of these, he or she is free to recommend the second half (not the first!) of Carnie's Syntax. There's no obvious reason not to have half a dozen book recommendations, if people care to add them in a scrupulous and informative way: the full set will take little space and of course fewer bytes than any corporate logo, popstar photo, etc etc. And of course if somebody objects that all these books are too difficult, then I or someone will have to point out that this is normally postgraduate material: minimalism isn't post-Newtonian cosmology (or "rocket science") but it's not that easy, either. No, I don't claim that linguistics has the status of a natural science (or that minimalism is as widely accepted within it as some concepts that have articles here are accepted within [non-nutball] physics) -- but is this either so very different from the predicament of physics writers or so difficult to implement? -- Hoary 11:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought

The recent controversy that we have been engaged in over inline citations has exposed, I think, a serious flaw in the way in which Good Article status is conferred. The possibility has been floated of forking distinct areas into a separate wiki in order to circumvent the naïve dilettantism that seems currently to pervade the GA process. I wonder, however, if much the same can be achieved through a rethinking of the good article process itself. There are many areas – physics, math, music, literature, pokemon, history, etc… - that have portals and named participants. Instead of having a group of 20 or so uninformed generalists undertaking the daunting task of rating articles as good or not, it would be preferable to divert the review process through editors involved in those distinct portals, a sort of fusing good article status with peer review. As a result of this debate, I have looked at a number of good article reviews and I find that the mostly the suggestions are of a “please cite your sources nature” rather than a committed engagement with the material. In effect, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of having the concept of Good Articles divided up by category with respect to review for inclusion or not: thus Good Articles in Physics, Good Articles in Music, Good Articles in Pokemon (shudder) etc…. While this debate has centred around scientific articles (not my area of expertise) I can easily see much the same being applied to music, literature, etc… where citations are being demanded for basic facts that nonetheless may be unknown to an uninformed reader. A proposal could be floated and the various portal pages invited to intervene with commentary and ideas. Eusebeus 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)