User talk:Iantresman

Are you the same Iantresman...

... who created the Heliospheric circuit gif? I would like to use that in an duplication of the Electric Universe model you have worked on. I find it relevant to my studies as I search for interdisciplinary relations with other plasma phenomenon. Please let me know if you would mind. TTLightningRod 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. --Iantresman 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Posted to my talk page by mistake. Alphax ^τεχ 01:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

List of publications in physics

Hi Iantresman,

Thanks for your contribution to the List of publications in physics. Please note Science pearls project that this list is part of.

The list should be a list of specific publications and not a list of journals, however important they are. Can you note such publications in plasma physics?

We can create a sub list of publications in plasma physics and add your contribution as further reading. What do you think of such solution? I have no proper knowledge in physics (and plasma physics) so I’d like to know whether it is suitable.

Thanks, APH 08:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My fault, now updated. --Iantresman 09:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that. Great. Are the entries in the list correct? Are some important topics missing? Should some entries be removed? Would you agree to adopt the physics list? APH 06:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Birkeland terrella

Hey, Ian,

Nice work tracking down the terrella-in-action picture for Birkeland current. I've seen photos of the thing shut down, but never operating. Very nice! zowie 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Check the Energy Arc image page. :)PiccoloNamek 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

To answer your question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Procedure_advice: You should copy the template, and paste it below, changing the "Template" of the name of the user, and filling in the appliable fields. You can notify the person either before or after, but note that you are not asking for their cooperation. They need to know so that they can respond to your accusations, if the arbitration committee accepts, it is regardless of whether they want to or not. After arbitration is accepted, a set of subpages will be created, one of which is the evidence page, where you can present your evidence for the arbitrators to analyze. There isn't a template for notification, all you have to do is say you are requesting arbitrationamd say that they need to make a statement, and give them the link. I can help you wih this if you want. Though I'm afraid that you might not understand the gravity of ArbCom. It is a last resort. Why don't you tell me what the conflict is about before you make an arbitration request? Dmcdevit·t 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

This notification is being sent to FT2, Iantresman, Harald88, and Wetman, as these 4 people have responded in support of my proposition to include the wikipedia policy 'POV selective fact suppression'.

I made a note on the page wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view that both the users Saxifrage and Dominick stalked me to said page, and that Dominick only started stalking me because Todfox notified him that I called him on his POV-pushing behavior on my user page. On my user page (user:NPOVenforcer), I have listed many people that have either pushed a POV and/or have used libel instead of fair argument, so as to warn innocent wikipedians of who to look out for. Saxifrage and Dominick both saw the list of trouble users, which included themselves as well as Todfox (aka 'Kit') due to their past offenses. Saxifrage and Dominick are thus conspiring to trying to suppress the POV selective fact suppression policy so as to give themselves free reign to make as many selective fact suppressions as they want. Also, Todfox is conspiring with Dominick to libel my informative list as an 'enemy list' via their RFC on my user page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NPOVenforcer (libel violates the wikipedia civilty policy, by the way), so as to try to get rid of the informative list and give them free reign to violate as many wikipedia policies as they want. On said libelous RFC, Dominick actually committed the criminal offense of trying to frame me of threatening his person, so as to try to put me in prison under false pretenses. I hope you find such behavior apalling as I do. It is for that reason that I am creating an RFA against Dominick to permanently ban his IP for his criminal offense against me. I hope that you come to support it. Why should you help save me from Dominick's offenses? -Because I am fighting to support the NPOV nature of wikipedia articles, so what benefits me benefits you through my actions, because you also support the NPOV policy. Besides, Dominick may victimize one of you next. Have you heard the saying "We will all hang together or we will all hang separately"? NPOVenforcer 05:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I notice several have criticized you for not taking your dispute with Joshuaschroeder thru channels first. But I haven't noticed anyone explain those channels, by explicitly offering you a link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This statement should not be construed as support or opposition to your cosmology, as I am not a professional scientist. Art LaPella 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite saddened by this whole thing

Kudos for contacting Peratt, it's an interesting development. Nice to see others with an open-minded approach. Jon 06:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. You may want to look at it if you have a spare moment, since your views are probably quite different from mine. –Joke137 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Learn something about redshift and come back

As it is, you are getting all your information from very biased sources and are doing searches in very round-about ways. You need to get a handle on the basics of redshift before you can make an argument to insert your POV into the article. As it is, you haven't demonstrated even a cursory understanding of the subject. Please read up on it and get back to me.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside statements

Yes, I do believe that they are allowed. Raul654 is the real expert on this matters, though. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Intermixed RFAR statements

I was about to remove them myself, but now that you've responded, I'm not sure what to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi Iantresman,

I noticed your request on the WP:RFM page. First, apologies that no one had gotten to it yet (we're rather short-handed). Second, mediators aren't decision makers, so I don't think that declaring consensus need or ought to be done by a mediator. It looks anyway as if a consensus has been agreed upon. I'm removing the request, let me know if you have any questions. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion RfC

Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then [1] ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that [2] ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me [3] ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time.

ObsidianOrder 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Self references

I think it's a pretty clear case of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. It's intention is clear; don't have such links in Wikipedia articles. enochlau (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Birkeland currents discovered

Two points:

1) This is the first time direct evidence for magnetic fields around a molecular cloud have been observed. The Zeeman splitting is very difficult to measure. 2) There is no indication that the field is generated by Birkeland currents.

--ScienceApologist 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is still the first time magnetic fields have been directly observed around (not in) a molecular cloud. You have a poor definition of Birkeland currents. Maxwell's equations predict a current density for every magnetic field with circulation. That isn't the definition of a Birkeland current which is a current circuit associated with a magnetosphere that interacts with a plasma such as in the aurora. A simple current density associated with the curl of the magnetic field doesn't necessarily indicate a Birkeland circuit since there are a lot of ways to get a current density on large scales. --ScienceApologist 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to me by my username on talkpages

Such courtesy would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --ScienceApologist 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for following my request. Such courtesy does not go unnoticed. I'd give you a barnstar, but I can't find one that's appropiate. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

tired light

You asked me about what's happening on Tired light mediation; now it's starting to move, see Mediation Cabal: Tired Light Harald88 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PS your last message messed up Harald88 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

whtws a tired light? E-Series 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: Electric Universe Concept

I'm sorry for the late reply, you submitted this case. Is this case still in need of mediation? --Fasten 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification

I have replied to the mediation request. If you would like further assistance, please let me know, otherwise I will consider the case closed in aweek or so. Cheers,

Sam Spade 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11_Electric_Universe_Concept,_NPOV_clarification#Wraping_up, where your attentions have been requested. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, Voice of All, who froze the plasma cosmology page, say that we can edit it if we reach a consensus, which specifically does not have to include Joshua, if the rest of us agree. So I suggest that we agree on Tommysun's last version, with the exception of the definition of plasma. Can I try again here on that: "Plasma is a state of matter where electrons and ions can move freely, and carry currents."? What do the rest think?Elerner 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Redshift email

Hehe check your diffs more carefully: [4]. I wasn't the one who added the section; I merely slapped the {{verify}} tag on. enochlau (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed yes. Nevertheless, perhaps you'd keep an eye on the proceedings anyway. --Iantresman 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ion: Citing sources

It is great that you improved the article, but you reference numbers without citing a source that verifies them. If you have sources, please cite them, or otherwise try to find sources that qualify your information (provided that none refute it). The page Wikipedia:Citing sources might help.—Kbolino

3RR at Plasma cosmology

Please be aware of our three-revert rule, which you appear to have violated at Plasma cosmology. Further reverts during this time period (or any four reverts in a 24-hour period) will result in a block from editing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't technically violated 3RR, Ian definitely has. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No Undue Weight

• What we can't infer from this quote, is whether an item is of sufficient importance for including in another article

I could not interpret this sentence, but it maybe because english is not my mother toungue. I suspect it means that the quote is only about the absolute significance of a theory or view, not about its significance relative to an article. I agree with that. Note that the prominent adherent sentence, as I understand it, can only be used to exclude or include a theory or view from a given article. It is about the relative significance of a view or theory. It cannot be used to exclude a view or theory from Wikipedia because tiny minority views without prominent adherents may have their own separate article. Therefore, though it contains important ingredients that could be integrated in the No Undue weight section, the quote, which is about absolute significance, is not directly related to the no prominent sentence, which is about relative significance. I am not against that we include it in the No Undue Weight section, but I would like to see where it will fit and how it should relate to the remainder of the section. -Lumière 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that it is not because I ask how we can fit the quote in the current No Undue weight section that I am against your main points. -Lumière 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We should ask ScienceApologist some challenging examples of article that he/she edited and where consensus worked well for him/her. The goal is to figure out more concretely what a "succesful consensus" means for him/her, under what kind of mechanism it is achieved and on what kind of topics this mechanism, whatever it is, is currently being applied. I would not challenge him/her with examples where it does not work because this would not be as much informative. -Lumière 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The motivation for the above request is to understand why some editors depend so much on consensus in opposition to a clear policy. I looked a little bit on the history of ScienceApologist, but there was nothing obvious. I suspect that I would have found something if I had searched more. However, I found something for FelloniousMonk (FM). The key point is his comment "rv. See talk. Consensus is cite is not required and..." Note how "consensus" is being used to conclude that a source is not needed, which is against policy. If you look, you will see that FM is trying to include a paragraph that is building a case for the evolution theory without providing a citation for this viewpoint. The paragraph and the associated viewpoint is presented as if it was the truth, which is against NPOV unless this truth is attributed to a source (and a citation is provided.) Here is an exemple of a statement in this paragraph that, in accordance with FelloniousMonk's consensus, did not need a source:

"Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry."

If the statement would have been something like

"Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity says that the mechanistic view in biochemistry has triumphed."

there would have been no need for a citation because it only reports Monod's view in his book and the book is easily found in the Jacques Monod article. However, the statement that is pushed by FM implies that the triumph of the mechanistic view is a fact. This triumph is not presented as Monod's view, but as an independent fact that is discussed by Monod. This is against NPOV unless this view (that the triumph is a fact) is attributed and a reputable source exists. The entire paragraph is like that. -Lumière 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In your discussion with Saxifrage, consider this:

"My suggestion is that your problem with the policy as written (as opposed to Iantresman's problem, which is not the same as yours and it is disingenuous of you to appropriate Iantresman's question for your own ends) stems from an inability to take the rules of thumb as examples of how to apply the policy and extrapolate from them to a specific situation. Your unending crusade to set down every conceivable condition in explicit words is misguided to say the least. Doing so would only feed the wikilawyers and provide no new guidance to those who have a firm grasp of the policy already." Saxifrage 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis is mine. We should ask Saxifrage who are these people who have a firm grasp of the policy! We should ask him how we can distinguish these people from those people that do not understand it. Also. we should ask him if there is an explanation to the fact that these people find that the policy is perfect the way it is, even though it is not clear. Finally, we should ask him if he likes the fact that an unclear policy prevents POV pushers to push their viewpoint. However, don't mention to him the exceptions: those POV pushers that mysteriously master this unclear policy have no problem. -Lumière 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken links

You have recently made some broken links at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. For reference, internal links use double brackets, separate the "text" from the link with a pipe (|), and do not include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ at the front. Conversely, external links use single brackets, separate the "text" from the link with a space, and are fully-qualified URLs. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:NPOV

I've restored Jimbo Wales' actual quotes, replacing the ambiguous paraphrase in the Undue weight section [5]... unless someone can verify his 2003 mailing list "comments" as they were written. Here is the correct, accurate, verifiable quotation:

From Jimbo Wales, writing on the WikiEN-l mailing list in September 2003: If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. [..] And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether." [6] Jimbo further clarified in response to the suggestion "I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, albeit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print", Jimbo Wales replied: I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely. And this helps to tie the policy here in with parallel policies in other areas, i.e. 'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.[7]

--Iantresman 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this is necessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What either one of us might think, what is more important is a verifiable primary source. --Iantresman 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages aren't subject to the verifiability policy. If that's your only reason for making the change it should be reverted. Though I would say retaining the link to the original email is warranted. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts presented on ANY page are suject to verifiability, unless you can verify otherwise. Additionally, Jimbo Wales' may set policy, so again, his version of policy is law, and that too is verifiable. --Iantresman 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A brief reading of the verifiability policy page would show that it applies only to articles.

Besides, Jimbo is not the supreme lawgiver. The only thing he has made "law" is that having a policy of writing from a neutral point of view is a must. Everything else he has said are contributions from a respected member of the community, as the policies are community-decided. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have added another direct quote from Jimbo's post, directly address Undue weight, and the amount of space majority and minority views may have. --Iantresman 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:NPOV

I can't do anything to exclude you, Ian, I can only make the request in the interests of harmony. I took a look at Slrubenstein's comment and what this dispute seems to be about is whether or not to paraphrase Jimbo's words about NPOV. I have to tell you that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on a policy page, because the words aren't being quoted or used because he said them. Rather, that is the wording of the NPOV policy, and Jimbo has also said something very close to it (really, almost identical). But this is wording that has existed on that page for a long time, and there is clearly no consensus to change it: in fact, you are the only one who seems to want to (and perhaps Lumiere, I don't know). Please re-consider your position in the interests of giving that page a break from Lumiere's disruption of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a holiday

Sorry Ian, I can't be arsed making myself needlessly unwell trying to reason with senseless knuckle-dragging science graduate rationalism fanboys, I'm diverting my efforts elsewhere for a while. That said, are you aware of the Brynjolfsson redshift paper? Some interesting fits, and talks about Rayleigh and Raman scattering. Jon 01:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Style tips

Thank you for the work at del, nabla symbol, and other places. And just a few small suggestions. One is that it is good to use an edit summary say most of the time, and second is that one should use fewer capitals in section headings, so ==External links== rather than ==External Links==. These are tiny things, but are the house style, so I thought I would let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Archive Freedom"

Are we supposed to take this seriously as a source:--> http://archivefreedom.org/

Claims there is some kind of "blacklist" in physics preventing certain physicists from publishing work. This clearly shows a grave misunderstanding of the scientific method. Anyone is free to publish -- as long as it is science. Overturning a paradigm will earn you fame, and if true, a theory will stand up to critical peer review.

All the website shows is that certain pseudoscientists have a bizarre conspiracy theory of science, and instead of doing science, pseudoscientists scream like children about how they are being "censored"? — Dunc|☺ 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that User:Marskell had initiated an RfC on my behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. You may wish to comment. Aquirata 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Thanks for your support! Your view pretty well sums up the way I look at discussing policy, too. Aquirata 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain...

... 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)

wouldn't need to make a point if you edited article fairly --> That's some pretty shaky justification for your practices here. If you have a problem with my editting, there is a dispute resolution process you can appeal to. Please don't disrupt the encyclopedia itself. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Voltage at Tower Bridge

Sorry for the delay in replying; I was on vacation. Faraday tried an experiment at Waterloo Bridge (Tower Bridge did not exist is those days), but the current was too small to measure. (I guess the resistance over that distance was very high). I did the calculation about forty years ago in school and remember the answer as one volt. However I am now rusty on these things and have asked a friend to recheck my calculation. I will assume that the water is flowing at one metre per second and the river is 200 metres wide. In London the earth’s magnetic field is 55,000 nanotesla and the dip angle is 67 degrees (it is zero at the equator and 90 degrees at the magnetic poles). I will let you know the answer. You might also like to have a go. I then have to invoke one of Fleming's contortions to get the direction! JMcC 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light

Sorry , i shouldn't have used the word badly in my edit summary. It's just 'alternative to redshifts' is confusing as you mean current, accepted redshift theories. my apologies. -- maxrspct in the mud 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Free plasma resource

They'll send you a free copy if you request it. Pretty good resource: [8] --ScienceApologist 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect your oposition to my nomination

I also respect your explanation. Frankly, I never expected that you would support it.

As per my "perspective" I just have to say that I'm perfectly fine with NPOV as a concept, but I don't think that this is as accomodating a principle as you view it to be. In particualr, I think your intrepretation of NPOV is too insistent on the incorporation of minority opinions. I also find it problematic that your advocacy of ideas related to your father's catastrophism ideas clouds your judgement with respect to editing. You seem to think that your perspective uniquely represents neutral which means it is difficult to engage you in articles on subjects where you are trying to employ this "neutralizing" agenda. I often get the impression that you are here to reinvent certain well-defined scientific terms by overly referring to ideas on the fringe of science or pseudoscience to promote a perspective you see as "more balanced" but is, on the consideration of the majority, skewed towards undue accomodation. I was deeply, deeply troubled by your posting to Halton Arp's message board basically asking for your allies in these subjects to come into Wikipedia and affect consensus for the simple rationale that redshift should be defined as all the folks on that board see it rather than the way the majority of science textbooks treat it. Nevertheless, I have tried to assume good faith whenever possible, but I imagine we probably will just have to agree to disagree on many of these issues.

By the way, if you want to be an admin, I'll gladly support you. The only reason I want to be one is that some of the tools that you can use in combating vandalism (you know the sort: someone comes into a page and writes I WROTE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) save a considerable amount of time compared to the user tools we're given. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian, believe me, I have heard and understood your insinuations that I'm either a McCarthyist or a writer for Pravda as a means of criticizing me for going on witchhunts and censorship rampages. (Incidentally, if you haven't read Pravda recently, I encourage you to do so, it's always good for a laugh.) I just respectfully disagree. I take a different opinion of NPOV than you, specifically I think that there is considerable risk in presenting minority ideas as more important than they are if we were to take your idealizations of NPOV to their natural conclusions. What would happen if we adopted this kind of Ian-flavored NPOV policy would effectively be promoting an opinion based on accomodation rather than neutrality. As I've said, I see this as perhaps an intractable dispute, but I'm willing to discuss it. If you're ever in Chicago, USA, we'll have a drink and hash it out.

I'd almost pay to see that bar brawl (kidding)... Or maybe referee it. Seriously though, I agree that NPOV is relatively sacrosanct. However, what happens if the item you're reporting on is someone's opinion or a belief (consider Cultural anthropology or the understanding of a person or group's beliefs; in these instances I'd say that understanding someone's opinion or belief is relevant and worthy of inclusion), and you're presenting the opinion in a neutral way (inclusion of counter opinions, etc.)? Specifically, how can we include one group's ideas and not another's? IE, if we write an article on the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult or beliefs of minor tribes of Africa, how can we exclude the beliefs of the group or culture (it has its own terminology/language, and specific mythology) known as Electric Universe proponents? This is an interesting question from a folklore / cultural anthropology standpoint. How can we determine that one group's ideas are more important for inclusion than another groups beliefs? If we include one but exclude the other, aren't we playing favorites and displaying our own bias for or against a particular position and thus violating NPOV by suppression of ideas that we personally find objectionable? Just wondering. HAve to play the folklorist's / cultural anthropologist's advocate. I think that definition of core beliefs for a group are a noteworthy thing for inclusion, so long as they're presented neutrally (cultural anthropology and folklore attempt outsider neutrality in presenting the beliefs as the believers believe them, NOT performing outide interpretation on those beliefs). My 2c Mgmirkin 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think you may be rewriting a bit of history yourself. After all, you did contact my employer inquiring about my positions at one time. I'm always curious as to what perspective people come from and how that influences their work both formally and informally. You have been alternatively very up-front about your advocacy of catastrophism and guarded about it. This coupled with your post to Arp's website has made me suspicious of some of your activities here at Wikipedia. In that post you articulated a position that seemed to allign well with what I was seeing in your editting practices. I get the impression that you are clamboring for certain subjects to have greater visibility in the sense that you think that these subjects are unfairly marginalized in the science press, the academic journals, in science text books, by the scientific community, etc. This makes sense to me coming from a catastrophist. It's a real social critique of Ivory-Towerism that I take inspiration from to be an educator. Of course, Wikipedia is not about educating, it's about "informing" so I avoid promotion in the article space. However, what seems to me to be an avoidance of promotion may appear to you to be the same old marginalization tactics. And the world keeps spinning.

Anyway, I find a lot of this to be incidental to the Administration request. I really don't anticipate that our dispute has anything to do with whether I have a set of tools or not. I would never, for example, block you for anything nor would I delete articles you created. We just have too much of a history and that kind of behavior would be inappropriately disruptive. Still, I recognize that you may want to object to my RfA which is your right. We have a history and trust is hard won while mistrust tends to stick around.

--ScienceApologist 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, Ian, I think our conflict comes down to the fundamental problem with Wikipedia: how do editors deal with the vague Wikipedia:Notability essay. You are an "inclusionist" and I am a "deletionist". Jason Scott explained the problem well in atalk. I think your background as a catastrophist (outside the mainstream viewpoint) makes you inclined to be an "inclusionist" while my background in academia (inside the mainstream) makes me inclined to be a "deletionist". --ScienceApologist 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion. EU anecdotal evidence...?

Since you seem interested in catastrophism and possibly the EU model (I've found some of their claims convincing, some I'm on the fence about). Specifically, this article by Nasa is interesting: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/2005_dust_devil.html

Specifically the statement by researchers (which I've included in the EU concept entry under Electric weather): The team believes they made the first Doppler LIDAR measurements of an invisible dust devil. "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime," said Dr. Brent Bos of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Appears to show that dust devils are not caused by dust floating the high winds as was supposed. Rather there is a collimated filamentary structure that exists (and is detectable via LIDAR for a significant interval) regardless of flying dust, or more aptly MISSING dust (machined from the surface in some but NOT ALL instances by the EM collimated filament). IE, dust is the effect of machining by the filament, not a cause of the filament itself. The filament stands alone and exists even without the dust it machines. Suggestive of the Electric Universe hypothesis, anyone? Hmm... ;o] Mgmirkin 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect that similar LIDAR surveys of tornadoes, landspouts and water spouts, before and after actual connection and machining will show similar if not identical features. IE, it's detectable even without the machining that somehow supposedly "causes" the filament... Replete with electrical characterization (EM interference/noise, etc.). My 2c. Mgmirkin 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, and on a completely unrelated note, on your main page you failed to note: Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Juergens and Halton Arp. ;o] Hehe. Can't forget them. Velikovsky is at least good for the laugh about the furor his ideas created in mainstream scientific circles (that and putting out there the idea of electrical machining and arc discharge between solar bodies, which has been carried on by subsequent theorist in the EU model; I know, I know, nobody ever wants to mention him because it's like sticking an "I'm a crackpot" sticker, or perhaps more appropriately a lightning rod on their heads. *wink*). Likewise Arp (they banned him from telescope time in the US for contradicting them all; talk about suppression of science. Isn't science supposed to be falsifiable? And if we find contradictory evidence, aren't we SUPPOSED to report it??)... Mgmirkin 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Analysing pseudoscience

Ian, you were quite kind with my hasty submission awhile ago on the talk page. I appreciate your allowing me to correct it in greater detail; some observers would have quickly tried to make me out a fool for my first quick attempt at explanation there. Hope my second try was more useful. ... Kenosis 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Wolf Effect

Up for deletion as it presents a decrease in line intensity far in excess of what is associated with a Doppler Shift of 83 km/sec. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

Background

• I am involved in editing a number of articles which might be cynically described as "fringe" science and controversial, but which is derived from information that is generally peer-reviewed. User:ScienceApologist is a self-proclaimed deletionist,[9], with strong opinions that are rarely substantiated with verifiable citations.
• I believe that ScienceApologist uses double standards when editing articles depending on whether they are "mainstream scientific" articles or "controversial scientific" articles, for example, using Web sites as sources to criticise "controversial scientific", and not even accepting peer reviewed sources that criticise "mainstream scientific" articles.

Specific issues

• In the article Timeline of cosmology ScienceApologist edited two entries,[10] which he describes as "inaccurate". So I queried the changes on the Talk page,[11]. I reqested a source for his resulting edits, and an explanation of why he considers the original entries to be inaccurate. He just claimed I am baiting him; I feel this is a reasonable request?
• In the article Wolf effect I spent some time adding new material, all of which was based on peer-reviewed material.[12]. ScienceApologist removed it all, and although I restored most of it, he won't discuss the changes first, and has reverted everything. For example:

• I spent quite some time producing an original image (from a peer reviewed source), which he first claims is in accurate, and now claims is in violation of WP:V. Additionally he has put the image up for deletion,[13]
• I spent some time sourcing a statement suggesting that the Wolf effect is "a new redshift mechanism"; I found THREE sources (not peer reviewed, but in academic books)[14] that say this SPECIFICALLY (I included quotes), but he insists on removing this, claiming it has been discussed before. It hasn't.

• So, how do I approach ScienceApologist, and (a) get him to discuss edits before making such sweeping changes (b) get him to justify (ie provide verification) his edits, especially as they often seem to OVERRIDE peer review material?
• Note that myself and ScienceApologist have a long history of edit conflicts. --Iantresman 21:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Iantresman, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with ScienceApologist. :-( I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello I'm Aeon I have taken you case if you could reply back to me on my talk page with a brief summary of what you feel the main problem is that I may best represent you. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see. I will talk with SA and see why he is doing this. After that I will see what should be recommened to be done (by the looks of this Mediation would be the best but I need to see what SA has to say first). I understand your concerns and I will be willing to represent you in this issue. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I havetalk with SA. He basicly accuses you fo the same thing. I am recomending Formal Mediation on this case. If you accept this recomendation I can either help you to fle it or file it on your behlaf. I have made this suggestion to SA and he will have to say yes to medation in order for it to proceed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried and Article RfC or Third Opinion? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... then there are unfortuantely not many more opinions left as you have tried all. I will bring this up to the AMA Coordinator and see if there are any other WP:DR Steps that have not been taken. I think we have excused all but User Conduct RfC (And that is not a step to be taken lightly). Also can you link me to the ArbCom case in question so I might take a look at it (Might be something that can be used in there) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you could you also link me the the Article RfC? Me and the AMA CoOrdinator will be reviewing to see what else can be tried. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello do have not heard from you in a while. I looks like all types of WP:DR Steps have been tried. Do you still need the services of the AMA. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The efforts of Ragesoss and McCluskey against Logicus apparently to exclude a minority viewpoint on the Scientific Revolution Talk pages may interest you Logicus 17:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I am cautioning you about misusing WP processes to gain advantage over your opponents in simple content disputes. Inflated claims and questionable evidence all amount to bad faith wikilawyering. The community has very little tolrance for vexatious litigation, especially coming from someone with a history of disruption. Your comments [15] [16] are not in the spirit of dispute resolution but clearly intended to discredit a fellow editor. FeloniousMonk 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

SA nom

I've moved your comment (and my response) re: my SA nom to the discussion section; I believe this is the correct thing to do. Sdedeo (tips) 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

So far I haven't seen any edit warring. At this point I only want to get involved if edit warring is causing disruption, in which case I would protect again. Mangojuice^talk 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Try the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I guess. (*sigh*.) Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLP (or any other WP policy) dictates that what is stated in sources must be presented as unambiguous fact. We had a similar argument on this over at Talk:Cryptography which you may find interesting. So, no, BLP doesn't exactly force the issue in your direction. Wikipedia:Consensus is another matter, though: I think you may have a good point that prior discussion is being ignored by this new editor. Mangojuice^talk 18:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith is meant to be applied to Wikipedians, not to everything else. It doesn't have any relevance to evaluating sources. Ok, that said, if there's a piece of information in conflict, the burden is on those wanting to include it to provide sources. If sources are provided, and they are very solid (for instance, mutliple, clearly reliable sources that all agree), and no sources disagree, I think we don't have any choice but to present that statement as fact. If there are sources, but they provide only a thin justification (say, one reliable source, or a couple semi-reliable ones) and there is no source opposing that viewpoint, it may be appropriate to present the fact as ambiguous, using weasel words. If there are sources supporting opposing viewpoints, WP:NPOV gives pretty clear guidance. But there's no hard and fast rules about it. Keep in mind in the case of Lerner being a "plasma cosmologist" or whatever, that just because one source describes him as one thing, and another source uses another term, doesn't mean they directly conflict. Mangojuice^talk 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

You may want to use the phrase "Request for Comments" in your post here. I would have just fixed it, but some people are touchy about these things, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention instead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ionized-hydrogen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ionized-hydrogen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Conscious 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

As I understand it, evidence is inappropriate at this stage of an RFAr. Guettarda 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Williams

Did you see the Skeptical Inquirer's review of Williams' Encyclopedia? The last line of that review reads

"Encyclopedias need to contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." [17] --Dematt 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vacuum article

I'm having trouble understanding your recent edits to the Vacuum article. The luminiferous aether is already discussed in the Historical Interpretation section, and I think the article is already quite clear that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere, so what were you trying to add? Part of your edit has already been reverted by someone else. It would help if you clarified your intent.--Yannick 02:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Eric Lerner

After consideration, I reported you for a 3RR violation here. As I'm involved, I may not block you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[18] made on October 9 2006 to Eric Lerner

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Note: this does not constitute an opinion on the dispute... if I were interested, I would incline to your side, but on AGF rather than BLP grounds.

William M. Connolley 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iantresman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): 3rr on Eric Lerner. Your IP address is 84.9.191.165. I believe that my edits were exempt. The other editor's changes were conjectural (they wrote "Lerner stated .."), implying either the author is the only source, or does not have a BA in physics; while this is plausible, no verification is provided. Previous editors had also suggested that this is in violation of WP:LIVING Rationale: WP:LIVING says: "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule".

Decline reason:

I appreciate that you were trying to enforce WP:LIVING and that your edits were in good faith. I also believe you were in the right. However, the 3-revert rule is there to stop edit warring. The level of edit warring on Eric Lerner has caused it to be protected multiple times, and you're one of the people who have been in the middle of that, for better or for worse. It's not correct to say that WP:LIVING provides an exception for the edits you were making: there are good reasons on both sides for the revision (though, I do agree much more with your side). WP:LIVING would give an exception to revert to remove clearly false information: a lot of this was about editorial slant. And I think that in borderline situations, you should avoid edit warring more than trying to insist that WP:LIVING gives you license to ignore other rules. This block is short, and while I might not have given it, I think it's important that ALL the editors of that page be reminded firmly not to war back and forth between versions, but to talk things out. Sorry. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Iantresman 06:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your consideration. If 3RR is excluded from WP:LIVING, then it is because it is not considered edit warring, even thought it appears to be. WP:LIVING says 3RR is exempt for "conjectural interpretation of a source", and not to just "remove clearly false information".
• And I think if you look at the article history, with this exception, I don't take part in excessive edit warring, though I do take part in much discussion.
• If you also look at the Talk page, you will also note that I have extensively discussed the matter, provided much verifiable evidence, and had no requested veriable evidence in return; I believe that this is not the action of someone engaged in edit warring. --Iantresman 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR has a section "reverting potentially libellous material" as an exemption, but that talks about removing derogatory information that is poorly sourced or unsourced. That isn't what was going on here. Instead you were objecting to the editorial slant of the presentation of positive information, such as Lerner's degree from Columbia. That's not potentially libelous material: it's (in my opinion, and I'm sure yours) a WP:NPOV violation and in poor taste. The 3RR applies very specifically to conflicts over neutrality: if it didn't, it would be useless. WP:LIVING did a bad job explaining that exemption, and I've changed the policy page to make the two agree. I think the "conjectural interpretation of a source" clause is still about negative material: it's just another way such material can be poorly sourced. Mangojuice^talk 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone "states" somthing is to suggest that (a) it is only their claim (b) We don't necessarily believe what they are stating. Since I am not aware of any other biography on Wikipedia using the same phrasing (except where there is citation), we are singling out Eric Lerner, and implying that he is only person on Wikipedia whose word we don't accept.

And since we had no citation from ANY source (reliable or not), giving us cause to suggest that Lerner's degree was not real, their version was unfounded, and less reliable than the version I made.

If a potential employer saw Lerner's Wiki page, and saw that his degree was merely "claimed" or "stated", it might put doubt on his employement. It's not quite the same thing, but here is a similar example

So with respect, I suggest that I was editing on the side of caution, and that the block was not warranted. --Iantresman 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice, three editors, including yourself seem to suggest there was a potential libel issue using the wording that I corrected. I agreed,[19] and so I was OBLIGED to revert and was consequently exempt from 3RR by WP:LIVING:

• Editor Adam Cuerden felt that the use of "states" was "blatant libel"[20]
• You replied "I heartily agree"[21]
• Art Carlson replied: "I see it the same way"[22]

--Iantresman 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I actually only "heartily agreed" with the first sentence, in which Cuerden said "We CANNOT imply his degree is fake by claiming he only "states" he has it." It's is not libel, and it is not potentially libelous, nor is it particularly close. It is true that Lerner states those things: libel concerns falsehoods. The text the others wanted to use was somewhat biased. That's bad, but it's not the kind of thing you can ignore the 3RR for. While I might not have blocked you myself, the block is certainly warranted with respect to policy. Myself, I don't like to undo short-term blocks unless I disagree with them to the level that I feel that the block was not a reasonable decision. Mangojuice^talk 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to repsonse. I think that still leaves two points in my favour.

• We have two editors then, who believe that the material was potential libelous. That should be justification enough for my editing.

• I note from WP:LIVING that Jimmy Wales writes: ".. 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

There was no source provided to verify that "Lerner states ..", that either Lawrenceville, or the IEEE, was unreliable, or, that Lerner had stated the information to them. He MIGHT have done. One editors suggested it was "implausible" [23], and that "some people who have read his book doubt the author of that book could have passed elementary physics"[24]. Other editors agreed that this assertion should also have some form of evidence ([25]). Surely this is "pseudo information", and the kind of information that should justify removal aggressively.

Recall that the version without "stated" was sourced. Twice. --Iantresman 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hohum. [26]], [27]. JBKramer 16:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Have fixed the POV-pushing to some extent. However, this article really needs more cites to help protect it from this in future. Can you help? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian, 50 peer-reviewed articles is not right. Lots of articles but only about 15 original research in peer-reviewed pubs. I'll check.Elerner 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop, you've requested that I provide evidence to substantiate my claim you push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately. I would like to explain my position. I actually don't see that I ever made this claim in the diff you've provided. In fact, in much of the diff you provided I am agreeing with your summary of the dispute (although, of course, I surely disagree with you about how it should be resolved). I do think you spend much of your time on Wikipedia promoting theories that I think are pseudoscientific or at least on the very margins of science. Obviously, I think that some of this is inappropriate in that it gives these theories undue emphasis. We also disagree about how the NPOV policy should be interpreted on some of the pages you edit: you seem to favor a more sympathetic POV and I favor a more scientific POV (neither of which appears to be endorsed by WP:NPOV). I don't, however, think you are a habitual violator of Wikipedia policy or that you do anything that is "inappropriate" in that sense. –Joke 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, when I first saw it, I thought you were right (and then I thought "well, I didn't mean to say that..."). It was only later that I realized that I in fact didn't say that. So: no worries. I don't think you do anything inappropriate, per se, and our differences reflect different readings of policy. (Although, frankly, I wish the disputes with User:ScienceApologist would get a little less fraught.) I have to admit that I don't remember having seen the first quote from WP:NPOV (however, you left off its continuation "bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views"). I'm not as convinced as you are that the spirit of NPOV suggests that articles about views held by a tiny minority should be written sympathetically (that seems like the domain of wikinfo), although I basically agree that they shouldn't be unduly hostile.

Part of my frustration is that there are no reliable mainstream sources about many fringe ideas, simply because there is very little to be gained by refuting them. So many editors coming from a mainstream point-of-view feel stymied when they come to fringe articles, because (i) they feel the idea is obviously wrong; (ii) the mainstream perspective is not adequately represented; (iii) there is little they can sensibly add without violating the WP:NOR and WP:V policies; and (iv) AfD rarely works for these articles. So there is a mainstream point of view, but it is unverifiable. This was a big problem on plasma cosmology and aneutronic fusion, and they are many more mainstream sources for these articles than many other fringe articles (for example, most of the sources for plasma cosmology, though, cover the ambiplasma model, which is essentially different from what Lerner talks about these days). –Joke 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathological skepticism

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathological skepticism you voted Strong support for the article to be deleted. Then you seemed to defend the article. Perhaps you meant to vote Strong keep. You can use the <s> and </s>tags to strikethrough your vote and make it more clear whether you want to keep or delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Pathological skepticism

Hi. You've indicated your support for the rename on the AfD page. You might want to move your comment to Talk:Pathological skepticism/Vote to rename. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

However frustrated you may feel about the outcome that is shaping in the so-called pseudoscience dispute, you do your cause no good by vandalising pages in what I take to be a protest. I'm letting it go for now, with just this warning, but some other admin might not have been so forebearing if they'd seen it first. I rolled back your edit to the decision talk page, and I strongly advise you to leave it alone now or there will be adverse consequences for you. Metamagician3000 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Ian is exonerated. See the discussion on my talk page and the talk page of the pseudoscience decision. I accept that he didn't do what he appears to have done from the history. It looks like it was probably a glitch in the system (and fortunately not someone hacking his account to frame him, which was the other possibility). See also here. Metamagician3000 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolf Effect

Ian, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect. I'd prefer it if you would take this to Talk and endeavour to get others involved in the debate. You know that edit-warring is only going to have one result. I don't think it's goinh to help anyone if you have to be blocked to forestall further problems while this is considered, so I do urge you to debate calmly. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here with the intention of warning you over your repeated reversions at Wolf Effect but see you have already been warned. Considering that this article falls under the scope of those listed in your RFAR sanctions, I suggest that you limit your participation to the article's talk page; your insistance on certain points in the article is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

William G. Tifft proposal

The discussion at Talk:William G. Tifft is getting heated. Would you consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing this article for a week, if User:ScienceApologist does the same? Then the rest of the participants would try to get a Talk consensus and revise the article, taking our pick from all the submitted (and sometimes reverted) material. I won't suggest this to User:ScienceApologist unless you like the idea. EdJohnston 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Just wanted to say thank you for all the work you have put in concerning Plasma here on wiki. It is visionaries like yourself that help to define and further the study of our universe. -Ionized 01:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)