No edit summary |
i just noticed you are about to break 3RR |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::I am not detracting from the discussion, but pointing out that personal attacks actually inhibit discussion. Your reiteration that "The statements are founded" represents yet another personal attack. You need to read our policy at [[WP:NPA]]. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> — [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] — 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC) |
::I am not detracting from the discussion, but pointing out that personal attacks actually inhibit discussion. Your reiteration that "The statements are founded" represents yet another personal attack. You need to read our policy at [[WP:NPA]]. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> — [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] — 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] You are in danger of violating the [[Wikipedia:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 --> — [[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] — 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I provided adequate explanation, if you read the talk page. I was as objective as possible in evaluating the material you added, and feel quite justified in removing it as nonsense. I did not conduct a full analysis, because I found sufficient evidence to dismiss the article you cited (author with history of bad results and no significant sound ones, flaws in double-blind, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria) I admit to one bias: removing of pseudoscience from Wikipedia. This is a good thing. I do not feel that I have compromised Wikipedia policy in any way. |
I provided adequate explanation, if you read the talk page. I was as objective as possible in evaluating the material you added, and feel quite justified in removing it as nonsense. I did not conduct a full analysis, because I found sufficient evidence to dismiss the article you cited (author with history of bad results and no significant sound ones, flaws in double-blind, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria) I admit to one bias: removing of pseudoscience from Wikipedia. This is a good thing. I do not feel that I have compromised Wikipedia policy in any way. |
Revision as of 04:14, 26 December 2006
Your accusations against User:Michaelbusch of "unfounded bias" and "personal prejudice" in this edit constitute personal attacks and will not be accepted here. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. If your attacks cease immediately there will be no further problems. Better still would be for you to return to your comment and remove the attacks. Peace, — coelacan talk — 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- The statements are founded.
- Dismissing the information presented without providing adequate explanation constitutes unfounded bias.
- Siting personal opinion rather than facts is expressing personal prejudice.
- Your accusations are groundless.
- Please stop detracting from the discussion and provide meaningful feedback.
- Thanks
- AS 61.68.119.205 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am not detracting from the discussion, but pointing out that personal attacks actually inhibit discussion. Your reiteration that "The statements are founded" represents yet another personal attack. You need to read our policy at WP:NPA. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I provided adequate explanation, if you read the talk page. I was as objective as possible in evaluating the material you added, and feel quite justified in removing it as nonsense. I did not conduct a full analysis, because I found sufficient evidence to dismiss the article you cited (author with history of bad results and no significant sound ones, flaws in double-blind, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria) I admit to one bias: removing of pseudoscience from Wikipedia. This is a good thing. I do not feel that I have compromised Wikipedia policy in any way.
You seem to have a problem playing well with others. Please exercise restraint and responsibility in your editing. I also recommend that you establish a user account, rather than shuffling between IPs. Michaelbusch 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: you do not seem to understand one of the fundamental rules of science: that something was published does not make it a reliable source. What makes a reliable source is standing up to peer review, scrutiny, and repeated testing. The article you cite has so many flaws in it that it is complete nonsense. Saying that because it was published it is reliable is like saying that Hwang Woo Suk's papers are reliable because they were on the cover of Science. Michaelbusch 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)