User talk:ජපස

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

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

Request for Comment Psychophysical parallelism

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

science-frontiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSN vs. Fringe

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

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

Quackwatch: Hufford

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

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

Ayurveda‎

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

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

Mentor

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

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

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

FA article you worked on reached the main page

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

NLP

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

Martinphi

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

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

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

Fluoride

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

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

Orthomolecular

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

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

Meeting via email to discuss your mentorship

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

Uncivil wording

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

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

Avoiding spreading and personalizing conflict

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

Re: calm down

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion

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

Chiropractic and antiscientific wording

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

Treatment of/for depression

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

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

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

Thanks for the star!

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

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

Bates Method

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

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

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

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

Mediation Cabal

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

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

Baiting Martin

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

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

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

Electrohomeopathy

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

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

Mentor agreement

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