User talk:Zvika/Archive5

I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
Please watch this page if you comment.

/Archive1

SatyrBot and Logic

Hi, Zvika - Thanks for the comments. I've asked WP:Logic to review some of the categories for misplaced banners (see here). One comment, though - "how real or ideal decision-makers make or should make decisions, and how optimal decisions can be reached" would seem to me (an admitted layman) to belong squarely in the "Logic" category... But I'll add that cat to the list to review if you'd like. Sorry for the over-tagging! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Zvika! Thanks for the note on my bot's talk page. A couple comments / questions...

1. I was approached by Gregbard about adding the {{Logic2}} template to article talk pages. I told him my process for doing projects like that, which is to have the group develop a list of categories that are at least 80% within the project's scope. He told me he'd put together a category list and was waiting a week for feedback. I assumed he was working with the project and that the project would talk things over and let me know. His response was favorable, so we went ahead with his project list.
2. If the bot has over-tagged a bunch of categories, I'm perfectly willing to get it to remove banners. Just let me know a list of cats and I'll sic the bot on them asap.
3. Would you prefer I stop the bot from continuing it's run of tonight's 78 categories? They're listed at User:SatyrBot/Current project.

Please let me know how I can be of help. While I feel I was working in good faith and with the project's blessing, I realize that 938 article banners is quite a lot and would be glad to help fix any errors that have happened. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Should this discussion be carried out at WP:Logic? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so cooperative. Let's tackle the urgent things first: the following categories which are scheduled to be added tonight are, in my opinion, only remotely related to logic, and I think you should remove them from the list at least until we can discuss this: Category:Game theory, Category:Lemmas, Category:Mathematical theorems, Category:Mathematical relations, Category:Probability theory, Category:Set theory, Category:Set-theoretic universes, Category:Set theorists, Category:Theory of computation. Regarding the other issues, I will have to respond tomorrow because I really need to get to bed now. --Zvika 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NB: Please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic#Too many logic project boxes for further discussion on this matter. --Zvika 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Study

Hi Zvika,

Thanks for your message. I'd love to have you participate, but we'll need to do it *quickly* as I'm starting to approach deadline for my thesis :-)

Basically it's an email interview in 3 parts. If you email me (tamsin.lloyd@gmail.com) we can get started!

Thanks again for your interest, and I'm pleased you liked my piece.

Cheers, tamsin 10:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User subpage deletion

Hi, just to let you know that you can request your user sub page to be deleted via WP:CSD#U1 instead of sending it through prod. Regards. KTC 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

exp family

I just tried to respond with maths to your questions at |exp family talk. Pdbailey 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot of executing that move. Pdbailey 00:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

UCU

Hi - I reverted your changes on the UCU article as we use DD/MM/YY in the UK rather than MM/DD/YY as in other places in the world. --Fredrick day 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I really care, but the previous sentence has a date in the format I used. You should at least be consistent. --Zvika 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued fraction

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that continued fractions in which the pseudo-numerators are 1 are almost never periodic. But numbers can have more than one continued fraction form, and at least one is sequential. Take for instance:

While

$\pi =3+{\cfrac {1}{7+{\cfrac {1}{15+{\cfrac {1}{1+{\cfrac {1}{292+\ddots }}}}}}}}$

Consider:

$\pi ={\cfrac {4}{1+{\cfrac {1}{3+{\cfrac {4}{5+{\cfrac {9}{7+{\cfrac {16}{9+{\cfrac {25}{11+{\cfrac {36}{13+{\cfrac {49}{\ddots }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}$

$\pi =3+{\cfrac {1}{6+{\cfrac {9}{6+{\cfrac {25}{6+{\cfrac {49}{6+{\cfrac {81}{6+{\cfrac {121}{\ddots \,}}}}}}}}}}}}$

--Mostargue 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting note. I have a terrible memory, is this related to one of my recent edits? Cheers, --Zvika 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Euler–Mascheroni_constant.--Mostargue 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now. My point is that someone looking at this continued fraction might erroneously assume that there was some pattern to be figured out from the few numbers listed, where in fact there isn't. It's the same situation with the expansion of [[Pi]. You are of course welcome to make any changes you see fit, but I think it'd be better if you did so in Pi rather than in Euler–Mascheroni constant, since that page is probably watched by more people and will get more of a discussion. --Zvika 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering, who decided to use the continued fraction that doesn't have a pattern? And why even show the continued fraction at all? e (mathematical constant) doesn't have the continued fraction at the top of the page. Oh well =)--Mostargue 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for some reason they wanted to use a version with 1s in the numerators. I really don't know, but I think if you ask about this in Talk:Pi, you will get a more intelligent answer. --Zvika 10:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Human chemistry

Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. You guys did a more thorough check than me, and based on the evidence you've uncovered, I have changed my vote. --Zvika 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg conduct RFC

Do you have any comments to add at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geoeg? Dicklyon 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mean square article

Basically it's to long to be reasonably considered a stub. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14 8 January 2008 (GMT).

Krantz

I understand your point on the Krantz piece. But, on the one hand, he's a heavy hitter in the area of decision theory. On the other hand, the reference section of that article has at least one piece by Barzilai which has certainly not been peer-reviewed (and the other is a work on decision theory that has certainly not been reviewed by decision theorists), while Barzilai himself doesn't have any cred in this area.

My thinking is that the article itself should not be pulled without review, that the references by Barzilai presently need to stay until better references are found or the article is pulled, and that the reference by Krantz not less acceptable than those by Barzilai. —SlamDiego_←T 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility and Formatting

Since I didn't respond in-kind to Ruud Binnekamp's calling my behavior ugly, I'm going to assume that the suggestion in your comment that I was failing to be civil was a result of a formatting error. —SlamDiego_←T 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Ruud called Krantz's behavior ugly, not yours. (Or are you Krantz?) I also did not say that you were incivil, only that we should all try to stay civil. In any case, I had no intention to offend anyone, and I apologize if I did. I only wanted to remind everybody to keep cool. Instead of saying "where are the references to ... the ostensible paradox?" you might have said, "please see if you can find any references to this paradox," which I think would have contributed to a more constructive atmosphere. --Zvika (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Read:

Krantz's personal attack is ugly and so is the insistence on referencing it

I took that without replying to it, but then you still implied that I was being uncivil. And there is a very great difference between not sugar-coating and being unconstructive. A format fix or some other repair would be far better than an empty apology. You've made the atmosphere just a lot more unpleasant by proceeding with reckless disregard for the truth. —SlamDiego_←T 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you may think of me, you had no right to edit my comment to change its meaning. Also, your accusations are way out of line. I suggest we just part ways, I hereby withdraw my comments from the AfD. --Zvika (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated, I thought that you'd made an honest error. I clean-up formatting on lots of deletion discussions (including some in which I am not otherwise involved). No, my accusation are shown to be not out of line by your disingenuous edit comment, demonstrably made after you'd read my explanation for making the format change. —SlamDiego_←T 09:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias (statistics)

Hi, here is a reference for this terminology. And I'll be sure to limit the number of links to one per entry. Btyner (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Proof of Stein's example

An editor has nominated Proof of Stein's example, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof of Stein's example and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing for the Signpost

Hello. You expressed interest in writing for the Wikipedia Sign?post (sorry for the delay in responding). I'm sending this message to everyone who commented, so if you have any questions I haven't answered, please feel free to ask me, and I'll try to respond to specific questions.

Essentially, what I'm looking for is writers who can step in and write on subjects that are newsworthy from week-to-week. The content of the stories obviously varies each week depending on what's happening; this is discussed below.

There are three major parts to writing an article:

1. Choosing a topic
2. Writing the article
3. Submitting the article

Part 1: Choosing a topic

As said above, topics will vary from week-to-week. For this week, these particular issues may be newsworthy:

• Bureaucratship candidacies — There are a lot of bureaucratship candidacies this week, for the first time in about six or seven months. I'm personally covering this one for next week, but this is a good example of what might be newsworthy.
• Encyclopedia of Life — This encyclopedia of species has been getting some press, and relates somewhat to Wikimedia project Wikispecies.
• Hidden categories — For those technically inclined, this is a new feature that has some interesting implications.

For more ideas, and for ideas in the future, check the tip-line -- there are usually some good ideas there.

Once you've decided on a topic, make sure to sign up for it in the newsroom, under "Special stories", so that users aren't duplicating each others' work (though multiple writers are certainly free to work together on a story).

Part 2: Writing the article

Now, you've decided on a topic and signed up for it. To write it, create a subpage in your userspace. For my story this week on the bureaucratship candidacies, for example, I'll create it at User:Ral315/Bureaucratship candidacies. The name isn't a big deal, of course -- I'll change it if necessary.

Formatting the story isn't important; for your first article, you should mainly focus on writing a good story, and I'll take care of the formatting when we publish. Try to write it in a newspaper-like tone, avoiding personal comments and opinions in favor of straight-forward facts. The size of an article varies based on what the story is, but a good minimum goal for most stories is two-to-three good paragraphs. Longer articles are even better, so long as they're well-written.

Part 3: Submitting the article

Now, all you have to do is post a link to the article in the newsroom, where you signed up for it earlier. That's it! You're done!

Again, if you have any questions at all, please contact me, and I'll try to respond as soon as possible.

Thanks for your interest in writing for the Signpost. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert Withdrawal

Hi, Zvika. I noticed you posted on Filll's talk page about Expert Withdrawal. If I were you, I would start with talking to Raymond Arritt - they are his sub-pages. They started during the time when the MH ArbCom case was winding down, and prior to the loss of a very valuable editor. The issues, in my view, can be boiled down to just two:

1. how to deal with the relentlessly civil but tendentious POV-pushing editors - these editors have helped to make many pseudoscience articles uneditable
2. in contentious areas, we have admins who will enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR but not other policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:TE, WP:GAME, WP:FRINGE, ... - this relucatance is understandable in that civility and 3rr are easy to enforce, and many of the others require some understanding of the topic under discussion (often leading to disqualification of an admin as they aren't 'uninvolved') but the results are not to the benefit of WP, especially as some of the editors in the point 1 category are skilled at getting opponents blocked by gaming WP:CIVIL

If you want to see what I mean about gaming, have a look at WP:AE and the complaints in the last week about ScienceApologist. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. --Zvika (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you specify which "very valuable editor" has left, and what is the MH ArbCom case you are referring to? Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The "very valuable editor" who left was an administrator who used his right to vanish, and has tried to remove his name from anyplace on Wikipedia. For a while he was editing under Vanished User, trying to remove his name. The Arbcomm case was about User: Matthew Hoffman (hence the MH). It was a very ugly "test case" where an administrator acted somewhat irresponsibly and voting started within 12 hours, before there was any evidence. There were two RfCs (or even three RfCs, depending on how you count) involved as well (one of which was deleted, so you have to get it undeleted to read it).--Filll (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is much more to this MH case, and I have a lot of opinions on the MH case, but I am not sure they are of interest to you. You can read the MH case and decide how much you want to know.

And yes, the Expert Withdrawal page I believe grew out of the Matthew Hoffman case. I am not sure who started it, but I believe it was User: Raymond arritt. I was an early contributor, but I did not start it.

I agree pretty much with the characterization above. The page originated from the general feeling that WP:CIVIL and maybe WP:BITE are viewed as more important than any other WP policy including WP:TE and WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, particularly in pseudoscience areas and alternative medicine areas (obviously, it is easier to enforce WP:CIVIL than the others, so this might be a big part of the reason).

I wonder if we are not overemphasizing WP:CIVIL at the cost of productivity, potentially. Unproductive SPAs who are civil, or who are gaming the system by charging everyone else with civility violations, even for disagreeing with them, are running the show in many areas. Previously they might have been sanctioned, but I gather that the current zeitgeist is that unproductive SPAs are to be allowed to do whatever they want since we want to grow the number of editors here and do not want to chase anyone new or trollish off, at all costs, even at the costs of disruption or driving off experts and experienced productive editors (who are clearly viewed as not worth as much as unproductive SPAs and trolls by many now). Friends who are on both sides of the pseudoscience divide (pro science and pro pseudoscience) but who are productive have ran into this WP:CIVIL trouble, and it has given me pause to see very productive members be discouraged while we encourage unproductive editors.

You can see many opinions on the Expert Withdrawal pages. Many are from MDs and PhDs and other experts, particularly in the sciences expressing dismay at the situation. Many suggestions are there for dealing with the problem. The first impulse many have is to stage a strike or walkout action.

I have stated repeatedly that a strike might be good for getting someone's attention, but then what do you do when you have their attention? I have been trying to encourage editors to come up with creative ideas on how to reform WP policies and culture to help with the perceived problems and frustrations. I want us to come up with a list of potential measures to try, and to put them in a document. Then when we get the attention of the senior levels of Wikipedia and alert them to the problem, we have constructive input to offer and a list of suggestions on how to make things better. You can see all of this in far more detail on the Expert Withdrawal pages.

Feel free to ask me if you have more questions or want more information.--Filll (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Contact me for the other side of the story. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, do' share the state secret, 'do. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zivka. I have no opinion one way or the other about whether this should be in the Signpost. Jay*Jay accurately describes the origin of the frustrations in the two points he notes at the top of this thread. I started the subpage because there were discussions like this scattered around on various article talk pages. The subpage is a central place for thoughts on the underlying issues, and has the added benefit of improving the signal-to-noise ratio on article talk pages. I should note (as I have previously) that "expert" was a poor choice of words on my part. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As you see just above with the minor example provided by Jim62sch, one issue which could be covered is whether or not those perceived to have fringe views deserve to be treated with civility and kindness on Wikipedia (see also the Expert Withdrawal page). Other issues include interpretations of policy. But I'm not a reader of the Signpost, so I may have it all wrong. Certainly, it is a very complicated situation, with strong feelings and a very long history involving at least three very complicated ArbComs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I would very much like to hear your side of the story, but please try to phrase it in a way that I can understand. For example, what exactly are you referring to as "interpretations of policy"? Also, I am not quite sure how to understand your comment on civility: obviously many editors have civility problems; are you saying that there are more civility problems on the "mainstream science" side? Finally, is there any discussion page where you and other like-minded people are discussing the issues that bother them and what they think should be done about it? --Zvika (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and like-minded editors are indeed on the opposite side of the issue from the pro-science editors, and interpret WP policies (particularly NPOV) differently than the pro-science editors and editors trying to include material representing mainstream views in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles. I do not know if they have a central location where they share views; one can find these views scattered on a number of talk pages, and many of them are arguing vehemently that pro-science editors interpret NPOV incorrectly. I would be glad to give you some examples if you are interested.--Filll (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I'd rather give Martinphi a chance to respond in person. --Zvika (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I give up

Filll (and whoever else might be watching): As far as I can see from having read most of the very long discussion you held, it seems that talk of a strike or boycott pretty much fizzled out, and you are left with various suggestions for modifications of the way Wikipedia works. That's not much of a news item in my opinion. Might I suggest you finish writing the essay you started working on; seems to me that that's a more appropriate way of letting people know of your suggestions. It took me a whole day to read the discussion, and I am a fairly fast reader. I don't think many other people would have bothered, even if the subject matter interests them. --Zvika (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Probably for the best.--Filll (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does tend to go on and on and on and on. And on. And on again. I admire your patience. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll attempt a concise response. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ray, it would appear that it's time to start editing that particular page back to what it started out as. Currently it's turning into more of the Homeopathy wars with the decent of the POV-pushers on the page(s).

Zvika, FWIW, there is no organised campaign. But you can see the informal results as a lot of pro-science types have left the various contentious articles. Sure, some are still there but most are sticking to more rational subjects, withdrawn to just ce'ing, or just withdrawn in general. But you are correct, it's not really newsworthy per say. Shot info (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty newsworthy that a bunch of purportedly unorganized editors are dominating a bunch of articles in opposition to the out-numbered editors who wish to make them sound neutral instead of making them into debunking articles (if a lot have withdrawn, a whole lot remain). They are doing this avowedly in the name of WP:SPOV, a deprecated principle. I thought it was very perceptive of Zvika to see that what you want is not really NPOV, or WEIGHT as written, or even FRINGE as written, but a revamp of the current structure which would even allow you to do OR to debunk. Zvika, there was even a vote on allowing OR in the Bleep article. They thought it would be fine. I think Jimbo, for one, would be interested that a group of SPOV editors tried to take over the ArbCom, and then when that failed are brainstorming on how to change WP, at the same time they are, avowedly, pushing SPOV on fringe articles. They even say directly that SPOV and NPOV are the same thing, directly opposing the consensus on the community on this matter. If it isn't newsworthy, it's sure worthy of something. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well you have your Martinphi response.--Filll (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Martin is that what's happening? Well Zvika, I guess you do have a story there... Heroes, Villians, Underdogs, and even a maiden in distress :-) Shot info (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just that I see this primarily as an argument, not something that actually happened. Had there actually been a strike with any noticeable effect, that would have been a story to cover. The Signpost does stories on things that happened, like interesting ArbCom decisions and such. It seems to me that what you've got here is more appropriate for a kind of editorial or opinion piece, which the Signpost doesn't really carry. This is not to say that it's less important or less interesting -- personally I found it extremely interesting. Perhaps you could go on Wikipedia Weekly, they are always looking for discussions like these. --Zvika (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A good choice, I think. Ral315 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The real story

The real story is what has happened, is happening, and continues to happen with Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to understand what "the story" is. People disagreeing on what an article should look like is nothing new. Anyway, as I said, this is not the sort of thing the Signpost usually covers. --Zvika (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit more protracted than this. This spans hundreds of articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Look, it's a very interesting debate. Many other people might be interested in it. Have you considered posting a notice in the community portal? Writing an essay? Having a panel discussion on Wikipedia Weekly? These are all appropriate ways to get more people involved in your discussion. The Signpost just doesn't seem like the correct venue. Of course, that's just my opinion. Feel free to discuss it with Ral315 (the editor). --Zvika (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Things would be a lot easier if SA and friends didn't have a good point. That they do have a good point -there is fringe POV pushing- tends to overshadow other points which are also legitimate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Zvika - dude - right here on your talk page you happen to have THE two editors who are considered by many to represent the ne plus ultra of polar opposite POV's in this protracted drama. Also, these two happen to be well-known central characters in the ongoing "story". Why not do an "interview" with Martinphi and ScienceApologist? Submit it to Wikipedia Weekly or just post it as an essay. It could rival The Rolling Stone Interview with Lennon ;-) 66.30.77.62 (talk)

Thanks, dude, whoever you are. It brings me no end of wonder that I do seem to be considered this way. What Have I done right that people think I'm such a powerhouse? What have they done wrong to not know what my POV is? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia Weekly is a podcast, so they'd have to do the interview themselves with whatever software they use (mostly Skype, I think). I for one would love to hear the interview if it does happen. --Zvika (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also would love to hear that. These two are like polar opposites. Actually, although I am closer to SA's position, I find them both a bit extreme on some issues. But it would be extremely entertaining to hear them in a debate or discussion or interview I think. --Filll (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree! Any suggestions on who would be a good moderator? We need the equivalent of Jim Lehrer. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You would find out something, indeed....... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize that it was a podcast. Well. Realistically, an audio interview with these two just ain't gonna happen. But a print interview (especially using a wiki based format) is very doable. I'd love to see them face off with directed questions from an uninvolved moderator in a neutral setting with no interference (or help) from their cadre of boosters and detractors. 66.30.77.62 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure how that can be set up. But it is worth thinking about maybe.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be done easily. First is to get them both to agree to do an interview. It should not be positioned as a grudge match or debate as much as a discussion. Second is to lay down the ground rules, for example, anything posted during the interview cannot be used by either party in an Arbcom or AN/I report. Both parties are advised to be polite and civil, but petty tattling and bitching ("he called me a name!") would be verboten. Third is to pick a moderator. Fourth is to open a page on someone's userspace for Wikipedians to submit questions for the moderator to choose from. The actual 'interview' could last a day, or a week - as it would be held on a specially created userspace page. Format: moderator submits a question, both SA and MP reply. Moderator submits followup, both SA and MP reply. etc. etc. Moderator determines when interview concludes, archives the resulting page, and voila, you have The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview. I have a feeling that readers would come away seeing that bitter rivals are often "two sides of the same coin". Or not. It would be extremely illuminating either way! 66.30.77.62 (talk)

Nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would an audio interview not work? It seems to me that it would be more spontaneous. Martinphi and ScienceApologist, if you are still listening, what do you think? --Zvika (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people write well but are uncomfortable speaking. Most scientists are introverts and are notoriously poor interviewees. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No audio interview. For both personal and technical reasons. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do either/both a print and an audio interview/debate. I already have some materials on this subject scattered throughout the internet including my user page, a video from a recent Wikipedia meetup, a copy of my pseudoscience presentation from said meeting, and a podcast interview with an online radio show. Anything more in any format anyone wants to use for getting the word out about this issue I will gladly participate in. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good material. I think SA is onto something. WP is a massive venue for promoting science, or pseudoscience, and the mainstream community should wake up to this situation.--Filll (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

Wow. Surprised and impressed by response from both SA and MP. From the examples provided, SA apparently has no shyness about doing audio interviews or appearing under his real identity. Martin, I think it's time to step out of obscurity and into the public eye. Your destiny is calling. If your web connection is lacking, I think the podcast producers could set up a conventional (landline) telephone conference call. It would be a fantastic opportunity. Think about it. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If Martinphi is shy, we could arrange to electronically alter his voice so he is unrecognizable. Or possibly he could submit his component in written form and someone could read his responses for him. That would be much more tedious, but still would result in an accessible and interesting product after some editing.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there are issues other than privacy here. For example, maybe English is not Martinphi's native language, in which case a real-time interview would put him at a disadvantage. If he so desires, I think we should respect his wishes and conduct the interview in text format. --Zvika (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider asking Levine, he's well-spoken and able to engage SA without (excessive) rancor but maybe he's insufficiently pro-alt. Pete St.John (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer the MP/SA matchup. For whatever reason, they have become iconic of the current dispute. Both feel an acute sense of disenfranchisement, and both have leagues of sympathizers. I'd like the moderator to probe their emotionally-similar yet opposing-in-ideology POV's within a high-level Charlie Rose type discussion format. 66.30.77.62 (talk)