User talk:Supertheman/Archive

The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Thanks for the comment - but why on my talk page instead of the article talk page? I have moved it to here, and I'm thinking about how or whether to respond. Cheers! Snalwibma (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth

I see from your user page that you have two elementary aged boys. I also have three children about that age. I really fear our generation leaving them with a planet in much worse shape than we inherited. I'm curious about your thoughts on that subject. Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Hi Supertheman. This is to inform you about WP:3RR, the Wikipedia rule limiting repeated reverts on one article to at most 3 per 24-hour period. A revert is broadly defined as any change that at least partially undoes an edit of another editor (although an uninterrupted series of changes counts as one reversion only). By my count, you have had at least 3 reverts on An Inconvenient Truth. Please be aware that violators of WP:3RR are routinely blocked from editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate the rule. I noted however that someone else *cough* did revert my edits (and or reverts) more than three times. Thanks. Supertheman (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

I will do it.

Give me all the scources you have, and I will put them with mine and get to work on the article.

We will need to do some convincing on the talk page of global warming, or it will be deleted again.

Kratanuva66 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do what I can to help. Mentalhead (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This will be a waste of your efforts. Stick to editing intelligent design or creationism :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Iblis, Wiki is a forum in which all persons can contribute, therefore nothing is a "waste of [our] efforts". However, I do appreciate your concern.Supertheman (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

• See Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen#New_requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently are planning to do to Global Warming. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please note that WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE forbid us from including "criticism" sections in mainstream theories that are not under actual dispute within the relevant academic community. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Supertheman, you can ignore this not-so-surprising comment for the most part. You have every right to add material to any article, global warming or not, if you feel that it will improve it and provided it is verifiable. Other editors might disagree with you and either delete or discuss your edits. WP:WEIGHT might come in play for any edit you will make in Wikipedia, whereas be aware that this is a policy that is sometimes, for good or for bad, subjectively applied to protect orthodoxies here and there. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from baiting and personal attacks.[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to ScienceApolgist's remarks on his talk page, I quote it here so that others can see the response to his remarks.

==Global Warming==

I would appreciate it if you would not carry out your personal war with scientists that refute the Global Warming premise on my talk page, this should be done on the global warming talk page. However, since you have decided to do this I feel it only fair play that I respond. However, in the future, debate over the global warming page needs to be done in the proper forum, and individual talk pages are not that forum. I would like to point out the many fallacies that you made in your comment on my talk page, but first we need to come to a consensus on our terminology.

When you speak of "global warming" there must be a definition of terms. An example might be, evolution. There are many facets of evolution that one can believe in, survival of the fittest, natural selection, mutation and so on. One might believe in some aspects of evolution, but not all. Likewise, a person might believe that the planet is indeed warming, but not believe that man is of *any* cause of such a trend. Also, one might believe that man is augmenting the warming of the planet, contributing one might say, but not the overall, underlying cause of such a shift. Also, there is great disagreement withing the "relevant academic community" concerning the *totality* of impact that global warming will have in the near and distant future. So, when you speak of global warming, I think it necessary that you explain just what kind of global warming you believe in (if any at all). On to your fallacies, you wrote...

"Please note that WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE forbid us from including "criticism" sections in mainstream theories that are not under actual dispute within the relevant academic community."

You committed eight fallacies here, let me explain...

1. Appeal to Popularity - The popularity of a belief in something does not a fact make. For example, at one time in the history of the world most people thought that the earth was flat, the popularity of this belief did not make it so.

2. Begging the Question - When you state that "relevant academic community" doesn't dispute the theory of global warming, and then use this "relevant academic community" to bolster your claims, you make the mistake of Begging the Question. It is a cyclical argument that doesn't lead to the truth, but simply restates an untruth as being accurate because your "relevant academic community" says it's so. This leads to the third fallacy you made.

3. Biased Sample - You have taken a sample of scientists that believe in global warming and prejudiced your findings from this biased sample. There are *many* qualified scientists that do not subscribe to the entire tenets of global warming that are presented on the Wiki page, and that is simply a travesty of truth. In point of fact, it is among the most blatant sophistry that exists on Wikipedia.

4. Post Hoc - You are assuming that since man's pollution came before this current warming trend that he is the cause of such a trend. Many warming periods have come before man every started polluting the atmosphere, therefore you cannot simply assume that because man polluted before this trend he is the cause of the trend. This also leads to the fallacy of Hasty Generalization - You are making a generalization about the entire "academic community" by only sourcing your "relevant" members and applying it the entire community. This also leads to the fallacy of Questionable Cause.

5. Confusing Cause and Effect - You are assuming that global warming is caused solely by man, therefore you are confusing cause and effect. In the past 15,000 years there have been "10 large swings, [of global warming] including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to '20 times greater than the warming in the past century'".

6. Poisoning the Well - You are dismissing qualified data, and qualified scientists by dismissing these in your "relevant academic community", this is called Poisoning the Well. There are *many* "relevant" academics that do not subscribe to all (or any) of the tenets of global warming theory, these individuals are just as relevant and qualified to refute global warming as your group.

7. Slippery Slope - Assuming that just because we have a small, current warming trend does not mean we well continue to warm, leading to some of the absurd, dire circumstances that are listed on the Global Warming page.

And finally...

8. Ad Hominem - You have called the scientists that believe in a man-made global warming trend the "relevant academic community" and therefore are calling the scientists (or the academic community) that does not subscribe to all the tenets of a man-made global warming trend "irrelevant". This is not only arrogant, it is completely false. I have quoted on the Global Warming page (before it was erased) several qualified and "relevant" academic sources that directly refute some (or all) of the tenets of a man-made global warming trend, therefore you cannot (accurately) say that there are no "relevant academic" sources that disagree with said trend.

Besides all the fallacies I have mentioned, you are also guilty of incorrectly quoting the guidelines of Wikipedia, criticism sections are not "forbidden" by Wikipedia, they are "discouraged". Taking the word "discouraged" and turning it into "forbidden" is either an error on your part, or deliberate, only you can know which.

I hope this helps.Supertheman (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, was your comment directed to me, or Childhoodsend?

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to User talk: ScienceApologist appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. If you continue in this advocacy, you will find yourself blocked or banned. Please try working on Conservapedia if you are interested in promoting an anti-science POV as consensus. Continued activities in this regard will be reported to administrators who will begin to sanction you for disruptive and tendentious activities. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)