User talk:ජපස

Another one bites the dust.

Bye Wikipedia.

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

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

I'm not happy to hear this. I agree with you that experts should be given editorial control, but there might be other ways of accomplishing this. You need to join talk. That won't help sway dedicated cranks - that's for ArbCom, I guess - but some people might simply fail to understand why you're doing what you're doing, and might appreciate and be convinced by your explanation. Educate them. Alternately, you can solicit the involvement of other editors such as William M Connelley or myself.Proabivouac 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry to see you go, but fully understand the reasons. I would have left a long time ago (and nearly did so a couple of times) but felt I could not in good conscience abandon the project to the lunatic anti-science POV-pushers. My rationale is that as long as people are going to continue using this thing, I have a responsibility to try and make it conform to reality. But when all you get for your trouble is a kick in the teeth it's hard to continue. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You Will Be Missed

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

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

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

Wifflebat award

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

Defender of the Wiki

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

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

Departing essay

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

I appreciate the help that others give, but it should not be required that I recruit other editors to get around 3RR. I have come to the conclusion that consensus as it is explicated here is an extremely flawed ideal that essentially makes Wikipedia a community devoted to mob rule rather than the accurate explication of facts and ideas. Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-nit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. It is an intolerable nightmare, one that the community refuses to address for fear of becoming "elitist". Elitism is only a vice when it is unwarranted. When you get Velikovskians writing articles on the solar system, you have accomodated to your detriment. Unless Wikipedia addresses this, devoted idiots will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia until quasars become laser stars, the Big Bang never happened, evolution is just a theory: not a fact, and the Parapsychological Association will be afforded the ability to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.

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

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