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)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry for the belated notice. I posted your COIN report to ANI for review. Thus far it seems strongly in your favor. See User talk:Mathsci for the source of my concern. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I am not sure that outing someone was a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Hmm, first of all, who "alerted you"? Secondly, what is the definition of "outing" you're using. Has Pcarbonn complained? If not, how do you know we've outed him? What's more, how do you propose we deal with the fact that there is an obvious conflict-of-interest taking place? I'm all for privacy, etc., but either get the ducks in order and decide what "outing" means (it's not at all clear from WP:OUTING) or figure out what we can do to move Wikipedia to a better scenario. These issues are simply going to keep coming up until you guys with power get your acts together. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Who alerted me is not relevant. Sometimes things are brought to my attention confidentially. 2)I'd say any action that associates a real life name or other significant Personally identifiable information (I use the definition common within the HIPAA world, which I sometimes consult within) with a wikipedia userid if that user is not currently willingly disclosing it is potentially an outing. The user has to not wish it to happen, though, if they are ok with it, it's not. If they WERE ok with it but now are not (as is your situation) it's still an outing. 3) Did you ask Pcarbonn if it was OK to so associate him? Complaining requires awareness. If I out you but you're not aware of it, it's still an outing, don't you agree? 4) I think the COI could be raised without the outing, in this case. However I do agree that any system such as ours in which we allow pseudonymous editing is going to have these edge case problems. Which is why I favour only allowing editing by IDs that have disclosed their real world identities. "good luck!" is indeed going to be needed. I hope that answers your questions, and I look forward to your response here, I have your page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the actual names from the COIN section you created. I feel you should have been willing to do so without further prompting but since you did not I have done so for you. Please do not out others again, or you may face consequences. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And the editor put his name back. No outing. Verbal chat 10:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case. But the default assumption in ambiguous cases (as this one was) needs to be that the user does not want their name associated until we clearly know differently. So removal was the conservative and prudent thing to do, absent clarification. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I'm not clear here how you're drawing these inferences. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear for those that think this seems rather an odd comment, it was interspersed with two other edits, removed by the author of the edits in this edit: [1] I leave it to SA to leave or remove this as he sees fit, as is his decision by our custom. The question itself does still perplex me. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

COI evidence

I see that you have not responded to my request for more evidence to back up your accusation of COI against you-know-who. Do you have any? Olorinish (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About your COI evidence, it was so lame that (a) I couldn't understand it, and (b) someone declared the issue closed as not a COI, which doesn't look good. You need to explain yourself better, or be prepared for heavy criticism. From me. Olorinish (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please redirect your efforts to areas more in need of your specialties

If you get bored of trying to substantiate your "bad hand" accusations (and you will, because I've been editing entirely in good faith) may I recommend that you have a look at Cryonics, Cryogenics, and related articles? For example, please see that this is used as the first source in the intro to Cryonics, and has been for some time.

Wouldn't your time be better spent routing out that sort of thing than trying to pull Cold fusion -- about which reasonable scientists have disagreed and will continue to disagree -- to your particular interpretation? Do you really want to sully your reputation any further by going around trying to expose editors for having a different point of view than your own? Are you even familiar with the recent literature on cold fusion? IwRnHaA (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for a voluntary topic ban

ScienceApologist, I am disgusted by your accusation that PCarbonn has a conflict of interest since you refuse to back it up with hard evidence. I think it would be a good idea for you to voluntarily refrain from editing the cold fusion page and the cold fusion discussion page for a period of one year. Olorinish (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ororinish, please assume good faith and stop your poor faith and uncivil edits to this talk page - please see the harassment policy and our civility guidelines. Having a difference of opinions is no reason to ask someone to remove themselves from editing an article. If you feel you have a problem with SA, please refer to the dispute resolution procedures. Verbal chat 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that after reading Verbal's comment, I deleted something I wrote. Olorinish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy revert

Please take a look at my comment in Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard. You reverted my edit. Before I try to get around your reversion, I'd be interested in your thinking. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy availability image

Hi, I just wanted to say that I replaced the image you removed because this debate has come up before. There are a good amount of editors who disagree with your assesment on various grounds, so I think the best course would be to take the usage of the image to the talk page. Nothing personal. NJGW (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wackos

[2] Shouldn't that be "cold fusion fringe science promoters"? Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Got through the screener! If there was a way to redact edit summaries I would do so! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Hi ScienceApologist. Sorry to bother you again. When you removed my last warning, I notice you used the edit summary: "Don't need cold fusion wackos whining.." Whether this was aimed at me or another user (and I really don't care which it was at this point), this is a breach of our policy WP:CIVIL. If I see you playing fast and loose with any more of our policies over the next days I will give you a mini-wikibreak without further warning. Just thought I'd let you know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

John has an interesting Quote on his userpage -- " 'Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress' . Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

John should have a read of WP:DTTR. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that misses the point. ScienceApologist appears to indeed have been edit warring on the cold fusion article. Rather than grousing about the exact nature of the warning John gave, it might be useful for his friends to remind ScienceApologist not to edit war. That series of edits is in my view far enough over the line (with snarky edit summaries to boot) to be well worthy of a block. That John chose to warn instead of block was a kindness. Biting back at that? Not so much of a kindness at all. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. If you think that warning was "kind" rather than snarky patronising then heaven help wikipedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The kindness was in warning, rather than blocking, not the wording. The wording is contained in a template so if the wording isn't, in your view, kind enough, you know what to do, it's a wiki. BUt you miss the point as well. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cold fusion/1, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually looks like he's commenting on the edits, not the editor, and in this case of a civil POV pusher. NJGW (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're right. However, words like 'bollocks' are never needed, however strong your feelings over cold fusion are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate WP:BOLLOCKS for deletion, then? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more careful when quoting policies, making sure that you correctly wikilink them to the appropriate policy or essay. Your past record - nearly twenty blocks for edit-warring and civility - will mean that some administrators will tend to pre-judge you. Don't use language like that again, and be especially careful in future, so that we all know exactly what you're referring to. We wouldn't want a little slip-up like this to occur again and result in you being blocked, would we? I'm sure you understand :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

20 blocks means I'm used to it. And many of those blocks were overturned. People have a hard time dealing with me fairly, assuming that WP:AGF shouldn't have to apply to me. Don't you make that mistake now, and don't lecture me on "language" unless you have a degree in linguistics, comparative literature, or can expound academically on the varying standards of the "vulgar". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entering into discussion with you about this, because it's not up for discussion. Limit your language, and try to be civil. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I do this more than most people who oppose me appreciate. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about WP:CANVAS

Hey, I just noticed nobody has given you notification of this thread. Some concerns that your recent notifications about Cold fusion have crossed a bit of a line. I sympathize, but tend to agree: 13 pages is a bit excessive for what is clearly a non-neutral notification. I don't have a problem with notifying a non-neutral invitation for a few buddies to show up, and I don't have a problem with a wide distribution of a neutral notification, but I agree with what others have said, that this was stretching the CANVAS guidelines a bit far.

Cheers, and keep up the good work at fighting FRINGE! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC and Wikiproject notices might be a better way to proceed in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I know of no other way to get the attention that is required other than posting to a wide range of individuals, projects, and noticeboards. I'm sick and tired of people trying to tie my hands in disputes and will, frankly, not stand for it. If Pcarbonn can get a free pass telling people on his pro-cold fusion blog to edit cold fusion articles, surely I can let people on the project, above the table, know that there is a problem with POV-Pushing at Cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the blog thing is true, then that's meat puppetry and seems blockable. You mentioned SPA accounts somewhere else before... maybe that's an issue to pursue. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You did it in good faith, that's true, but next time try and keep the notifications to three or four :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And which three-or-four should those be? I placed a notice on FTN yesterday to no avail. What's the alternative? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to give it more time than one day to generate a reply. I didn't have as much of a problem with the tagging at the article as much as the lack of discussion that ensued. More time was spent posting on over a dozen noticeboards, projects and talk pages than discussing what the tags were about. I don't see a major issue with the notifications as long as it remains neutral, perhaps with the wording of, "I noticed that you were involved with the Cold Fusion article in the past. Your assistance may be required; please see the respective talk page for further information. Thanks." seicer | talk | contribs 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you think you need to canvas more than three or four people (and I don't doubt there is value in doing so), then to be in compliance with WP:CANVAS it would be better if the notification were worded neutrally. (I mean, seriously, do you think that OrangeMarlin is going to see a neutrally-worded notification about a POV dispute on Cold fusion and think to himself, "Gee, I better get over there and defend the brave scientists working on condensed matter nuclear reactions!" :p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's applicable to an extent, but if you are canvassing to push a certain objective or point, then that can be considered disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Or your harassment of science-editors could be construed as disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is a total red herring here. It has nothing to do with policies on canvassing. Uh, so can I spam ten thousand talk pages with an ad for cheap Cialis and invoke WP:CENSOR to defend my actions?

Look, hey, if you think that the value of non-neutral canvassing exceeds the cost of having people complain about it every time you do it, go ahead. It's not like anybody is going to block you for this, because, as you pointed out, it's only mildly disruptive at best. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal that if you are going to canvas a dozen different pages that you use a neutrally-worded message. You are still free to say whatever you want to individuals (that's where WP:CENSOR comes in, right?). Non-neutral canvassing leaves a bad taste in the mouth and undermines what you are trying to do. So just word it neutrally and you're fine. I really, really don't see what the problem is... I'm not trying to attack you, I'm not pushing an "anti-science agenda" (and I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I would be deeply offended if it were). I'm just saying that here is something you can do to conform to Wikipedia policy and avoid some of the heat that your opponents bring without really impeding your efforts in any meaningful way that I can see. Why is that a bad thing again?! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that your invocation of "non-neutral" is the issue. That's censorship because you've not demonstrated what is "non-neutral" about my requests for help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um.... really? You really don't understand why people thought your canvassing note was non-neutral?! Dude... Why are you so stubborn? I really, really, really don't understand. If you keep being such an asshole, then the community is going to continue to buy into every one of your opponents' allegations, whether valid or not, and the project will be a worse place. Maybe instead of wasting so much time saying, "Fuck you! I'ma do what I want!", maybe instead when good faith uninvolved editors mention something like this to you, you could just say, "I will take that under consideration" and continue on with improving the project. Just a thought... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thread

As nobody seems to have done so, I'm letting you know that there is another ANI thread with your name on it... — Scientizzle 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi - I was wondering how WP:OVERSIGHT applied to this edit? You're not meeting the "non-public personal information" clause - the information is publicly available on Wikipedia - it's not removal of potentially libellous information, as the information is not untrue or unduly weighted - and copyright issues don't come into it. Is there another reason that I'm not up to speed on? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're calling it under case two, it has to be potentially libellous, in addition to the reasons you've stated. Is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You shall have to make your own judgement per WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - where's the legal threat? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is none. That's why you have to decide for yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's no libel, and no legal threat, what he's doing doesn't violate any policies. Decision made. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right: my decision is that this summary doesn't belong in Wikipedia space. I will act to remove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'll help you where I can, if you want - but you've got to make sure you follow the correct policies and procedures. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer for help. I may avail myself of it at some point in the future. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In the concerns expressed here. Feel free to let me know if further clarification is required. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's invocation of WP:CIV against you is just another example of her general incompetence. Am I allowed to say that Elonka is incompetent? Or is evaluation of the skills of the worst administrators here on Wikipedia a verbotten topic? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To evaluate administrators, WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI are the ways to go about it. Please, please try and stay civil - even if she is "incompetent", as you put it, being rude will not solve things, and will just get you another block. 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up the rank incompetence of others is necessarily uncivil. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're sadly mistaken - Elona found it offensive, and frankly, so did I. Be nicer in future :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you please explain why you found it offensive? Alternatively, I welcome an explanation from Elonka as to why she finds it uncivil. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bates Method

Hi, i used to notice you around a lot at RfC's for science articles, so was wondering if you could give some help with an impasse over at Bates Method (assuming you are still here / back).

The article cannot pass GA as it has NPOV tags, but the editor adding the tag wont explain what is NPOV specifically, and recommends we give up trying to improve the page. As an editor that would clearly not be biased in favor of a fringe science, could you help us identify what the NPOV problems are specifically? or even add tags to specific section rather than the top of the page, to aid in improving in a step-wise manner?

As a scientist, i read the evidence and it is clearly a discredited fringe method, but i'm probably too easily influenced by facts rather than vague "tone POV" problems that go over my head. I'd never heard of the concept before, and got involved through the WP:FEED request for help from newbies page, but my advice to "dicuss on the talk page" is obviously not sufficient if editors wont discuss specifics.

Thanks for your time (if you've not been driven away altogether).Yobmod (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here. Perhaps you could tell the editor that disagreements are resolved by dispute resolution. Stonewalling is not a legitimate way to resolve a disagreement. Tendentiously adding an NPOV tag without explaining the problem might be a form of disruption that could get an editor blocked if they persist long enough. Please do try to encourage them to get into DR. If tendentious or disruptive editing continues, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is soo functional. Excuse me while I wretch. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was part of dispute resolution: "Turn to others for help". I already tried "focus on the content" and "talk page discussion". I just got pointed to policy pages, lol :-).Yobmod (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers

One way to deal with non-homicidal stalkers is to tell them exactly where to find you. When they call, be really boring (I have a knack). After a while, they will lose all interest. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking sucks - sorry (really) to hear that you have that problem. I've found that "Privacy Director" is a useful service, it forces CallerID blocked calls to give a name before connecting the call. Ronnotel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

I strongly recommend discussion before simply redirecting Aspartame controversy to aspartame. The separate article was created through consensus of quite a few editors. If it is going to be undone, the content should be merged back into the main article, rather than just eliminated by converting to a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time please check the top of the talk page to see if the article has been nominated to AfD recently. In this case an AfD closed as "keep" just a week ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspartame_controversy --Enric Naval (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold. No harm done. Reversion seemed to work out fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice and reading material

Regarding this thread, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and walk away from some controversies. :-) Bearian (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the consensus seems to be you're doing a great job - so be calm while you do it ... ;) Verbal chat 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't be calm, being silent is a good second choice. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think Jehochman has made a good proposal over on the ANI discussion. Verbal chat 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful with what you say. You're doing great work reforming cold fusion, and I don't want to see that project run out of steam. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be as careful as possible. Thanks for the support. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that case has now been resolved. However, remember that each time you use ill-considered language you make it easier for people like Iantresman to cause you trouble. I don't mind you being blunt and don't want to tie your hands in the thankless task you deal with, but you must consider carefully how any remark you make could be used by the unfriendly eyes that scan your contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab - Aspartame Controversy

Hi there. You have been named as a participant in a MedCab case regarding the article Aspartame controversy. I have opened the case here. I invite you to visit the case, read over the ground rules, and indicate whether or not you wish to proceed with informal mediation to resolve the current dispute. [ roux ] [x] 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SA. Thank you for indicating that you will not participate in the MedCab. I hope that other ways are found to resolve the dispute. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries at WP:FRINGE

I've commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back to ScienceApologist about the edit summmaries you have used. I also see that you asked Elonka not to post here. I'm not going to get involved right now on the thorny question of how much control someone should have over who can post to their talk page, but I'll point you to my comment in that ANI thread here, where I've endorsed Elonka's actions where she left warnings for people. I suggest you discuss things at WT:FRINGE. Your last post there seems to have been on 19 August. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Technique

Please could you take a look at this article as I'm not sure how accurate it is and how much it's skewed in favour of the Alexander technique being fact/verifiably leading to improvements (which seems likely.) You needn't get involved lol unless you want to, simply message me if you wish. I'm sorry if I led you to getting in trouble on Aspartame controversy :( I'm going through the whole Alt med category trying to NPOV/improve it. Sticky Parkin 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Ufologists

Sincere apologies, Science Apologist, for having spawned a zombie that now refuses to die. I'd happily kill it ... only created it to bleed off some of the goo obscuring the rotten wound that was the UFO article, which I thought at the time worth a resuscitation attempt. It's taken on a life of its own, now, but perhaps still serves the purpose of keeping some of the irrelevant crackpots out of the core article? Adhib (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Mediation - Aspartame controversy

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aspartame controversy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Twoggle (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, Elonka, Elonka

Hello, ජපස. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:ANI#Elonka.E2.80.99s_ban_of_ScienceApologist_from_WP:FRINGE. Thank you.. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you like me to put it?

I saw this removal. Per the edit summary, I think I have put myself on the line. But if you want a different wording or whatever, let me know, and I'll try to be clearer if you think it will help. Here's a try... "You should consider yourself banned from the WP:FRINGE page, until and unless either 30 days have elapsed, or a consensus develops to rescind that ban. If you post there, you may find yourself blocked. That's me talking. It would particularly be a shame to have to place a block on you just as consensus changed... so don't post there, ok?" Let me know if that's not a satisfactory statement, because I do not wish, want or desire to belabor this point excessively or unnecessarily, and certainly not in a repetitive or duplicative way, or in some manner of speaking that you've already heard and don't need to hear again. See Department of Redundancy Department. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please redact an uncivil statement

Per WP:POVPUSH calling an editor a POV-pusher is uncivil. In this edit you refer to me and other editors at "Fringe POV-pushers". While I can go on and on why that monicker is an incorrect one to hang on me, I leave it a this: Please remove/strikeout your personal attacks. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you follow the advice above and actually say why it offends you. Something as simple as "I do not believe I am one and that offends me" would be sufficient. In any case, I want to acknowledge and respect the fact that you did actually make an attempt to follow my request for civility notice and so will refactor. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for re-factoring [3]; however I still find even your re-factored text offensive. You are insinuating that I and others are single purpose accounts who actively promote fringe theories. I can't speak for the others, but for myself, I know that this is an untrue characterization. I feel that this still violates WP:NPA and I would suggest that you just remove the "description" entirely if you cannot present it in a civil and fair way. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some deescalation would be a better approach for you both. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Levine, it would be better for you to try something that you would actually tolerate if given to you on your own talk page.

ScienceApologist, there are civil ways of calling a spade a spade. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

real civility wouldn't be making insinuations about spades, either. I have to agree with Levine. while you both are entitled to your opinions about the goals and attitudes of other editors, it would be best if you kept those opinions entirely to yourselves, rather than indulging in these silly poisoning the well games. wp:AGF, please. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for the laugh! --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

my pleasure. If I can't get you to be nice, at least I can get you to be happy. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your serious warning

You really should consider if, in the midst of a heated dispute with an admin who has recently imposed sanctions upon you, it is wise for you to get involved in major editing of an article about that admin. I think its clear to me, and many others, that you are making a serious mistake. "Comment on the content" goes out the window with regard to the behavior of editors with a long history of an inability to abide by simple conduct policies. You aren't helping yourself or your goals by letting your dispute with Elonka bleed into your article editing. Avruch ^T 20:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your block log makes me question your little crusade here. Perhaps you can find another article on Wikipedia to improve. There are over a million you can choose from. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Per comments left at your talk page SA, I strongly encourage you to find another article to edit. Your strong conflict of interest, especially in light that Elonka imposed a page ban on you only yesterday, is giving undue bias towards your commentary here. Lar and others have made this distinction. seicer | talk | contribs 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My block log has nothing to do with the content of Elonka Dunin. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm anyone and I'm editing. Take it up with a noticeboard if you think the undue bias is going to be problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to the opinions that this is extremely unwise of you. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Don't you see that there is a clear conflict of interest in starting to edit an article of a person that just imposed a page ban on you? --Conti|✉ 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that a hallowed-ground article or something? Have I done anything wrong there? If you think that there is a conflict-of-interest, take it up with WP:COIN. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're in a dispute with Elonka, and now you started to edit her article. I'm sorry, but I can't get more obvious than that. --Conti|✉ 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Which of my edits were problematic? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the quality of your edits, and you know that. You shouldn't edit the article for the same reason that an admin involved in a content dispute shouldn't use his tools in that dispute, no matter how good his edits are or how right he is. You know that, too, but I think it's worth pointing out anyhow. --Conti|✉ 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in interpresonal matters, administrators should not be using mops and buckets against other users. However, I have never ever before seen someone say that someone shouldn't improve the encyclopedia. I am not an administrator and this is a goddamn wiki. If I make mistakes, people can correct them. There is no place in policies or guidelines which says that a person should not edit the article of an administrator who makes stupid decisions against them. I encourgage you to propose such a guideline or policy or add it to WP:COI if you think that it is necessary. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you're just concerned about appearance and not really about the fact that we're here to improve an encyclopedia and not just social network. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude. You want to ban Elonka from your talk page. Do you really think that you can edit an article about HER impartially? Don't be stubborn about this. Your stunt got attention, and there are now others looking at the matter. It was a stunt and really it shouldn't even be that rewarded, because it encourages further stunts, but further edits there are extremely likely to be viewed as highly problematic. You have a weak spot as far as Elonka goes. And Elonka apparently has a weak spot as far as every editor involved in fringe science goes. She should avoid the area entirely, is what I am starting to suspect. And you should avoid her. That's blazingly obvious already. QED. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude. YES, I REALLY THINK I CAN EDIT AN ARTICLE ABOUT HER IMPARTIALLY. I'm more than willing to avoid Elonka if she avoids me. However, article-space is for improving the encyclopedia. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia, tis all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you also juggle running chainsaws as a hobby? You are correct, you have as much right (i.e.... none, no one has a "right" to edit anything) to edit that article as to edit the 2.5M other articles that would be safer for you to work on, but you also show an amazing lack of situational awareness by doing so. If you can pull it off under the enormous scrutiny you are going to receive, more power to you. Me... I'm not that foolhardy. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I PREFER scrutiny. Scrutiny is what keeps Wikipedia honest. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that explains it. Wikipedia is god and refuses to reveal that which is hidden in order to destroy me. Thanks for the explanation. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice ScienceApologist (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um? The motto of the state of Michigan has what bearing? ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I live in Michigan. I still don't get it. Sometimes subtlety is not my strong suit, and sometimes actually saying what is meant is a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was simply countering Samuel's comment. We should all appreciate our present-context. Wikipedia is a poor substitute for Michigan, I'll grant you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?

So SA is not to make prefectly appropriate, policy abiding edits to Elonka's autobiography. But since COI is not reflexive, Elonka is free to flout her ill-gotten admin bit around SA. This is rich indeed. HiDrNick! 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You got it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ill gotten" ??? That may not be the best choice of words, DrNick... ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are paying attention, some of us have been saying that both are extraordinarily (and I might add, obviously) bad ideas. Elonka taking administrative action on fringe-related articles, especially in regards to SA, is a ten-page ANI clusterfuck waiting to happen, and it reflects very poorly on her judgment that she decided to do so anyway. By the same token, SA must have known what would happen when he started editing this article, and the "I can edit wherever I want!" argument strikes me as quite WP:POINTy.

I don't think that's a hypocritical position. Both sides are behaving with startling brazenness and profound foolishness. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were talking to others, not me, since I just got done saying "You have a weak spot as far as Elonka goes. And Elonka apparently has a weak spot as far as every editor involved in fringe science goes. She should avoid the area entirely, is what I am starting to suspect. And you should avoid her. That's blazingly obvious already. QED."... :) ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

@++Lar "Ill-gotten" is in deference to the clever ruse Elonka employed to obtain her adminship in the first place; I think it's perfectly apt. And @Jaysweet, agreed, it's boneheaded for SA to be editing the article at all. HiDrNick! 21:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka pointed to me that she is still recallable. Further, her terms have changed, I think in ways that make a recall somewhat more achievable than the last one that was tried. although I am not completely certain. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my position that good edits are good edits no matter what the context. This is not pointy. This is the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bah! There are dozens of isochron methods!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway, it's your funeral... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for attending. It means a lot. But make sure you don't make the same mistake as the those who underestimated the resiliency of Mark Twain. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are going to get as far as the The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County did after he was loaded down with all the shot. Because you're loading yourself down needlessly. But sure, go crazy! Knock yourself out! hmm... those metaphors seem to fit, somehow. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aspartame controversy. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Past life regression

I would like to bring this article to your attention, because it is in dire need of some POV cleanup. Since this sort of thing is right up your alley, I figured I'd let to know. ←Spidern→ 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I haven't seen shite like that on Wikipedia in some time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed. Twoggle (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail

Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up e-mails sent. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sent another follow-up email. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 2

May I ask why you chose to notify User:Jennavecia about nominating this page for deletion, but not myself, despite the fact that the page is in my userspace? GlassCobra 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for replying. GlassCobra 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

Filll suggested that I contact you. I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are working on. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Refactor on AN/I

This edit is mis-informed and misleading. You describe me as a cold fusion "advocate", which is not supported by the evidence. In fact, I have rarely edited Cold fusion and when I have, it is largely confined to a single peer-reviewed article that no longer seems to be an issue of contention. You may be frustrated that I oppose your methods, which I do not find in furtherance of WP goals, but please do not presume to infer my thoughts on cold fusion in general. I ask you to refactor. Ronnotel (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming ArbCom elections

Hi,

I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements. Would you consider running? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do. 62.65.237.199 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about this, but would you mind formally declaring this (in some fashion) so that people won't jump down your throat about it? It's probably best to avoid unnecessary drahmahz. Cheers, and feel free to remove this message. lifebaka++ 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award ScienceApologist the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for persistant efforts that finally uncovered ten sock puppets of a banned user. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise needed

There is a recent edit war in the article Ayurveda due to some pro-Ayurveda editors. Please help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise really is needed. I trust that you will think above the 'Please Help' request above and solve the dispute that has been needlessly raised over a six word wikilink and unnecessarily blown out of proportion. All of us unpaid volunteers have real work to do and your involvement and input may make things easier since others seem to label dissenting voices as 'some pro-Ayurveda editor' against whom 'Please help' has to be spammed to others. JSR 0562 11:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ජපස. You have new messages at JSR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JSR 0562 11:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rhetoric

You might try to keep the rhetoric to a moderate level. You'll find that more fence sitters will listen to you. This helps build consensus, and is more likely to achieve your objectives. Jehochman ^Talk 06:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A fair criticism. A diff would nice. However, I have noticed that employing rhetoric does tend to work on Wikipedia for reasons outlined by User:UninvitedCompany. I would prefer to be able to eschew it, but the fact is that fence-sitters waste my time. I would rather have them jump to the other side and see what it's like over there than have them rock slowly back-and-forth blocking progress by means of non-action. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself a question. "Do I feel lucky?" "Do I want to get things done?" While it may be fun to give people a good cluestick beating, if you actually want to solve problems, a lighter touch is often more effective. Jehochman ^Talk 06:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not from my experience, it isn't. I've found that the heavier the touch, the more likely it is that people will notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it takes all types of editors to keep Wikipedia interesting. Good evening, Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss Fractal Cosmology and re-direct edit

Greetings,

While I appreciate that you are trying to improve the WikiPedia, I feel that perhaps you might have judged my chosen topic too summarily. I am the primary author of the article you just shunted. While Fractal cosmology may seem like pure bunk, or Fringe Science to you, it was a low blow to simply re-direct the topic out of existence, to a subject that does not even mention fractals. I guess you wanted to sweep it under the carpet avoid criticism, rather than being civilized enough by requesting deletion or review. If I manage to resurrect the earlier page, please make your objections on the article's discussion page, or with notations of "citation needed" and other marks for needed review in the article body, rather than taking the coward's way out by ducking any counter-criticism. I want to be civil with you, but you have made it difficult.

I've left some comments on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard page, after the notice of your actions on this topic. I want to be a gentleman about this. I guess you are one would rather slash first, then inform, however. - apologies -jd

I will gladly take up any questions or issues you can offer, and I feel strongly that I can provide compelling evidence that will force you to re-consider your (apparent) bias against the legitimacy of this topic. Perhaps I can offset some of your prejudice opinions against the Fractal universe view, or at least show it's made serious inroads to mainstream acceptance, and is therefore worthy of inclusion as a topic in a serious reference work, which I sense you would like to see WikiPedia become.

But please bring your concerns to the table or the larger forum, if you feel the article is full of junk. Perhaps making it more factual, or making explicit mention of the fact that some in the mainstream regard the 'Fractal conjecture' as a fiction, would make it more even-handed. It may even deserve to be deleted, after careful review. In other words, the article may need re-writes or critical edits, but did not deserve the treatment you gave it.

Let's discuss this peacefully, or civilly, and resolve this amicably. Your critical review is invited, though not requested, as I share Verbal's view that the article had some trouble spots, and I was going to address some of the in my next edits. I will admit there was too much fluff, or perhaps too much advocacy of the fractal view, but that did not merit your choice of action.

Regards,

JonathanD (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I revised above to tone down some rude comments. It was not my intent to claim you are biased or malicious, merely hasty, or perhaps not well-enough informed of recent developments or changing beliefs. Cosmology is a wide-ranging topic, so it's easy to miss important new work in some area that is relevant to its study.

Apologies for any remarks which fail to assume your good faith. If you really are trying to improve the Wiki, we are on the same side. You should know that I wrote the Fractal cosmology article because I was trying to fix something that was just plain wrong. When I first came to the topic the Wiki was re-directing to "Infinite Hierarchal Nesting..." which was an extremely unscientific article that emphasized only the Fringe element. Not long after that; "Infinite Hierarchal..." was summarily deleted. So I was trying to be inclusive of what was being dropped, or even-handed, by not rejecting the Fractal hypothesis outright, nor confirming and affirming its validity, but linking it to some real Science.

But I think that Fractal Cosmology has moved from the far Fringe into the realm of "maybe this makes sense," and I don't want to see the topic just drop off the map, on the Wiki, at a point where scientists are actually taking it more seriously. Hopefully your feelings on the topic can be addressed in a less drastic way.

JonathanD (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You know the drill by now

I have requested arbitration of the disputes surrounding Cold fusion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your concern

I hear you. Not my intention to canvas. Was the article concerned posted on the appropriate topic area, group, or whatever the right term is? Also, in regard to another post of mine asking for input, I think it was legitimate in the context of an extended discussion I'm having with that editor about what content is appropriate for inclusion and what should be deleted. But I recognize your concerns and I'm happy to remove my comment from the UFO article if it wasn't appropriate there. I was just trying to put it out there for people who have an interest in the subject, and please note I did note make the slightest suggestion of which way to vote. The editors there may think that article is complete bunk! I was just trying to bring it to the attention of people with experience in that area and who might be interested in the fate of that article. The article itself is fairly well developed with a lot of references, so I want to make sure if it gets deleted it's for the right reasons and with due consideration. Let me know here, or on my page if you have additional thought or suggestions in this regard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the article be listed at WikiProject Cryptozoology and WikiProject Paranormal (both included on that article's discussion page) so the appropriate experts have a chance to weigh in on the matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. I hope that was appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Content:reply

SA what a lot of assumptions you make. What wikidefying editors/ The last comment I made in support of an editor was a case filed by Sheffield Steel, not by you. I have supported Martinphi rather than opposed you. I do watch the policy pages because I have strong interest in collaborative communities and I edit there because of that interest . Don't take it personally if you should happen to be there too. There is no one on Wikipedia I oppose for the sake of opposing them. Ever. I do support certain situations,if, contrary to what you think I feel, that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not being applied fairly and if I feel that some small comment by me could make a difference. I don't see Wikipedia-defying editors SA . I see editors doing the best they can and if its not fair, in my mind, I am going to try and help make it fair despite what it might cost me. I support neutrality on Wikipedia above all. Why are you following my activities, I might ask. Hmmm ... an interest in Rauschenberg's paintings or Odd Nerdrum perhaps.(olive (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal cosmology

Just a polite note to let you know that blanking large parts of the fractal cosmology article (see diff) after you had nominated it for AfD was, in my view, really not cool, and was deservedly reverted. Even if you felt your edits somehow improved the article, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion still says that significant edits made to an article while it is in AfD should be noted in the AfD discussion page, which you did not do. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hey there. I noted that you have nominated several articles for deletion recently, most have which have been speedily kept. Can you make sure to double check before nominating articles for deletion in the future? Thanks. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what should he double check before nominating? The results of the AfDs?

(To NW).I was going to say something similar. In addition, please try to provide a more detailed deletion rationale, so those who want to keep the article have something to argue against. Give us a specific reason why something fails a certain guideline. Zagalejo^^^ 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's what NW meant.

• Several entries turned up to be notable by a search of the top few google hits for the topic. That's something everyone can check. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear ScienceApologist - καὶ σἐβομαι γ', ὦ πολυτίμητε, καὶ βούλομαι ἀνταποπαρδεῖν (Strepsiades in 'Clouds') Lucretius (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me Novelty Theory has been nominated for deletion. The bulk of my response is here. However I would like to bring your attention to this quote from the fringe theories policy article:

"Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena."

If you cannot immediately find references to an article's subject look for published works by its named proponents with Google and the Library Of Congress online catalog. Read them and add references to the article where appropriate. —Clarknova (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Teflon and velcro

I file for arbitration and you get blamed. Go figure. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is your fault :) That's a heavy burden, I'll let you two decide who that's aimed at. It's probably a personal attack if I'm more specific. Verbal chat 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I made a suggestion to Twoggle that might interest you, here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO-related entities‎

I noticed you changed the above article to a redirect. You had just sent the article to AFD less than two weeks ago. I think that if you want to have a discussion on redirecting, that would be fine, but just changing over without a discussion might be just a tad too bold. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, I do hope you'll take some of the comments in the above thread seriously. While calling for a block was over-the-top and was roundly and correctly refused, there is concern that your interactions with the other editors were overly aggressive; the artificial deadline stuff is rather antithetical to the Wikipedia process and presumptious.

Because I wish to see your content contributions continue, please consider your actions in this content dispute in a broader scope: could the gains in article content have been made with less collateral damage (in terms of disgruntled good-faith users and drama in general)? I think the answer is "probably yes". However, I can't offer any quick and obvious solutions. Perhaps a simple slow down is good advice for when the heat's rising? — Scientizzle 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working over years to try to get to a system so that articles can be improved and made better in the most timely way possible. The longer articles stay in awful states, the more likely it is that students read them. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to start another round of the latest pissing match...SA, I know you've worked on improving your interactions with other editors. I simply thought that constructive, but supportive criticism might be useful in continuing this endeavor. I am sympathetic to the desire to quickly improve the intellectual wastelands we come across daily, but I feel that needless antagonism (hardly limited to you, naturally) can be counter-productive in the larger scheme. — Scientizzle 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know your intentions were good and I respect you greatly. I also think that needless antagonism is counter-productive and admit that I may not know unequivocally what is the best practice in trying to improve Wikipedia in an efficient, timely manner. However, I do think that the shift toward the "antagonism is always counter-productive" direction (which is not something you are advocating) is itself counter-productive. Too often there are people who think that conflict can always be avoided. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think the nice-nice police go a bit overboard. Still, I'm a flies and honey kinda person because I feel that, for me, I can accomplish my goals more successfully if I can take advantage of the information others (with whom I may clash) can bring to the table. For example, I probably put up with Dana Ullman for too long on Homeopathy because Ullman has a unique knowledge set for which I wouldn't be able to adequately substitute...unfortunately, he just couldn't drop his promotional nonsense to make it work out.

Neither of our approaches works 100% of the time, that's for sure. If you're in a situation where a sanity check may be in order, don't hesitate to drop by my talk page; I won't be shy about letting you or anyone else know who is traipsing into the realm of the overly antagonistic. Cheers, — Scientizzle 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How could a student be misled by an article on alleged UFO encounters? Do you think censoring these conspiracy theories and fringe views makes them go away? Why not refute them with good science. People believe and are interested in all kinds of things, sometimes for entertainment value, sometimes as some kind of religious pursuit or embrace of mythology. Star Trek is totally fictional, but it has inspired a lot of young minds to embrace science and physics. Demolishing or diminishing the existence and significance of different viewpoints doesn't help your cause. And your antagonistic approach is unworthy of a learned and considerate person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Was it encyclopedic? If so was it verifiable? If not then it does belong to the realm(s) of Star Trek and the like and needs to be treated as such. It doesn't need to be "refuted" it needs to be treated as if it's worthy of an encyclopedia. Shot info (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try to reference it? Did you check to see if it was encyclopedic? Or did you just delete it because you didn't agree with it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to reference it. Yes, I checked to see if it was encyclopedic. No, I did not just "deleteit" because I "didn't agree with it". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How could a student be misled by an article on alleged UFO encounters? Wow. I'm going to go ahead and say that it is nearly impossible for students not to be misled by an article on alleged UFO encounters precisely because they lend more credence to these flights of the imagination than a simple summary explanation (which is about all they should be getting given their lack of WP:PROMINENCE).

Do you think censoring these conspiracy theories and fringe views makes them go away? From Wikipedia? Yes.

Why not refute them with good science. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to do this. Wikipedia is the place to report on the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of a subject. "Refuting with good science" is for some other project.

Demolishing or diminishing the existence and significance of different viewpoints doesn't help your cause. My cause is to get Wikipedia to cover different viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. To do anything else flies in the face of writing an encyclopedia using reliable sources and verifiable facts.

And your antagonistic approach is unworthy of a learned and considerate person. The irony contained in this statement is palpable.

It is unfortunate that amateurs and charlatans are allowed as much clout as they are allowed on Wikipedia. I am an elitist because Wikipedia says that the best sources are the elite ones. Most people who are not elitist neither have access nor familiarity with the best sources. Most of them tend to hate WP:MAINSTREAM. Then they say that I'm mean and awful and cannot be very smart because smart people wouldn't hurt their feelings.

That's all.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• "My cause is to get Wikipedia to cover different viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources."

This would in fact give science short shrift. You should also note that many of the best scientists and biggest revolutions in thinking started in the fringe. You have self-righteousness down pat, but the idea that you're helping or doing a service by promoting censorship and using aggresive tactics to get your way seems pretty far fetched. Take care. Thanks for your response.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This would in fact give science short shrift. Really? You think that the coverage of scientific ideas, observations, and theories in reliable sources about scientific ideas, observations, and theories is limited? An interesting perspective, but I'd love an elaboration.

You should also note that many of the best scientists and biggest revolutions in thinking started in the fringe. WP:NOT interested. You are correct, but we don't have a crystal ball to determine which fringe ideas will be worthwhile and which will not.

You have self-righteousness down pat Is that WP:CIVIL? Is that a personal attack?

the idea that you're helping or doing a service by promoting censorship and using aggresive tactics to get your way seems pretty far fetched. Depends on what you think I'm "helping" and to whom I'm "doing a service". One person's "censorship" is another person's "edits".

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're so defensive when another editor engages you in a good faith discussion of your actions and behavior. Do you think I've been uncivil? Which comment offends you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments above were uncivil and constituted a personal attack. Stop now. Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to be uncivil, but perhaps my comments have been misunderstood. I was trying to be quite respectful and civil in my discussion of the issues involved in editing articles on Wikipedia, but I won't converse further with him if it disturbs you and will interfere in my ability to contribute and make the encyclopedia better. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't find your comments to be uncivil because I reject that WP:CIV is something that can be judiciously applied. I know from a vast experience, however, which comments are likely construed as "uncivil" by others. They are the following:

1. And your antagonistic approach is unworthy of a learned and considerate person. Some people, if subjected to such a statement, would construe this as a personal attack in that you may be describing me, personally, as being someone who is neither learned nor considerate. I see it as simply your opinion of my actions as a reflection on personality types and do not take offense. Civility is in the eye of the beholder, in my opinion. I do not think this statement is uncivil, but Wikipedia has a different standard of "civility" than I do.
2. You have self-righteousness down pat. Some people, if subjected to such a statement, would construe this as a personal attack in that you are describing me as being "self-righteous", which is to say, that I have a smug, superiority complex. I see it as simply a comment on a persona rather than being personal, however. I see what you are saying to be "you are adopting a self-righteous attitude which seems to be serving your arguments well". However, I do not think most people actually would share my interpretations of this statement.

This is just for your information. I am not asking you to refactor these comments or to "repent" because I do not find them to be problematic. However, you may wish to consider whether you would refactor or retract these statements if I had said as much. It is my policy to do so per the large comments at the top of my talk page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are actions here I find far more uncivil than calling people names, which you seem to understand is not what I did. I don't like some of your tactics, but I understand, as you clearly do, that there are unfortunately many aspects of Wikipedia that seem to require a certain game theory approach in order to accomplish objectives. This seems to be how you've decided to proceed. I've tried to avoid resorting to measures that fall outside what I consider best practices (ends justifying means), becasue I think the harm caused along the way is real and substantial. But I understand why other people use "clever" approaches to get things done. If there's something you want me to refactor let me know. I was interested in having a discussion with you, and I think open expression is an important component of that. I'm happy to remove or alter anything that is offensive to you. People have different standards and I try to respect those. I also understand the interveners are wary of allowing open criticisms that can lead to dispute and disruptions. And as I've been warned/ threatened with being blocked, I've moved on. But I hope you will consider carefully some of the points I made. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edits

I have undone your deletion without any discussion of the article on orthomolecular psychiatry. If you acquaint yourself with the matter, you'll find that there are doctors in the the United States and around the world who have been using orthomolecular psychiatry to help their patients for decades, with excellent results, far superior to those attained by "mainstream" medicine. Some of these doctors are affiliated with medical schools. I will take any subsequent edits that are similiar to be intentionally disruptive, and do all that I can to stop them.--Alterrabe (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria

This article is extensively referenced and most of those references check out. If you're going to argue it's not real, we need some evidence to support that. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Which references 'check out' to you? The article is mostly built on two fringe medical books.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lazy editors think that if there is a , then WP:RS is automatically satisfied. Extensively referenced, in this case, means "has a lot of footnotes". Excuse me while I retch. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

Contributions to wikipedia are not not really contributions when they run afoul of the rules. It behooves you to familiarize yourself with the wp:deletion policy and to abide by it. WP has mechanisms to ensure adherence to policies, which I am following.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Plea for help

Would you be willing to help bring introduction to special relativity to the level of accessibility and quality as introduction to general relativity? Your skills and knowledge would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Did you notice what I did on spacetime? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not (until I just looked). Good changes though! :) I've got WP:MTAA on my mind lately and I noticed the sharp contrast between the two introduction articles. You just came to mind as someone with a very solid understanding of the material and the ability to express it in a comprehensible manner for a lay reader. Vassyana (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I brought a stack of scientific articles from work and was going to work through them to improve our coverage of a certain archeological topic before the fringers discover it. Suddenly I find myself in one of your political edit wars instead. What a great way to build an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

You might want to drop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Resonance Theory. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in...

Torsion field. Seems to be right up your alley in terms of debunking. To be honest, I don't like your methods--but your results are valid and necessary to helping WP become (more?) reputable. The article would benefit greatly from your insight. // roux   07:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assembling my armies of the night

First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.

Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)