No edit summary |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
As an example of what could be an issue in editing the "Criticism" section is the sentence about Grubaugh's "polar configuration" model being disproved by two astronomers: Victor Slabinski (in Aeon 3:6, 1994) and Tom Van Flandern (talk.origins, Dec. 1994--but not archived). Talbott in his weirdly delusional way claims these disproofs were overturned by subsequent work by Bob Driscoll and Bob Bass; but this simply is NOT correct as the "howler monkeys" (e.g., Tim Thompson, Paul Gans, Wayne Throop, Karl Hahn, Robert Grumbine, Burch Seymour, Richard Harter, et al.) on talk.origins made perfectly clear in 1995-1996 (but never accepted by Talbott). Well, I've gone on too long here; I am sure you get the idea. It would not be so bad were Talbott simply the proverbial lone crackpot Velikovsky wannabe, such as John "Angiras" Ackerman or Donald Patten or James McCanney. But Talbott has serious funding from several wealthy retired entrepreneurs with Velikovskian roots, the most notable being A. Bruce Mainwaring, UPenn 1947 & Penn Trustee, whose $7,000,000 got his name on the new wing of Penn's University Museum. Mainwaring underwrote the stipends for Velikovsky's summer assistants in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as funding recent activities of [[Alfred de Grazia]] and Anthony Peratt [expeditions to catalogue and document petroglyphs allegedly motivated by stupendous auroral displays headed by Marinus Anthony "Rens" van der Sluijs (webmaster for mythopedia.info), reported in Fortean Times no. 233, 2008]. And so it goes.... [[User:Phaedrus7|Phaedrus7]] ([[User talk:Phaedrus7|talk]]) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
As an example of what could be an issue in editing the "Criticism" section is the sentence about Grubaugh's "polar configuration" model being disproved by two astronomers: Victor Slabinski (in Aeon 3:6, 1994) and Tom Van Flandern (talk.origins, Dec. 1994--but not archived). Talbott in his weirdly delusional way claims these disproofs were overturned by subsequent work by Bob Driscoll and Bob Bass; but this simply is NOT correct as the "howler monkeys" (e.g., Tim Thompson, Paul Gans, Wayne Throop, Karl Hahn, Robert Grumbine, Burch Seymour, Richard Harter, et al.) on talk.origins made perfectly clear in 1995-1996 (but never accepted by Talbott). Well, I've gone on too long here; I am sure you get the idea. It would not be so bad were Talbott simply the proverbial lone crackpot Velikovsky wannabe, such as John "Angiras" Ackerman or Donald Patten or James McCanney. But Talbott has serious funding from several wealthy retired entrepreneurs with Velikovskian roots, the most notable being A. Bruce Mainwaring, UPenn 1947 & Penn Trustee, whose $7,000,000 got his name on the new wing of Penn's University Museum. Mainwaring underwrote the stipends for Velikovsky's summer assistants in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as funding recent activities of [[Alfred de Grazia]] and Anthony Peratt [expeditions to catalogue and document petroglyphs allegedly motivated by stupendous auroral displays headed by Marinus Anthony "Rens" van der Sluijs (webmaster for mythopedia.info), reported in Fortean Times no. 233, 2008]. And so it goes.... [[User:Phaedrus7|Phaedrus7]] ([[User talk:Phaedrus7|talk]]) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Eric Lerner [[WP:BLP]]violation == |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page{{#if:Eric Lerner|, as you did at [[:Eric Lerner]]}}. Content of this nature could be regarded as [[Wikipedia:Libel|defamatory]] and is in violation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia policy]]. If you continue, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-biog3 --> ''The template is the easy way to do this, but let me just add that between your clear [[WP:COI]] with respect to [[Eric Lerner]] and your long history of trying to paint the worst possible picture of him as a way to help discredit his science, you are sinking pretty low in adding material not even supported by the ultra-flaky political attack book that you cite. You should really recuse yourself from editing this bio that you have long attacked. I'm sure there are other good wikipedia editors who can carry on and have a better chance of coming to a consensus if you'll stay out of it. If you put unsourced material again, that appears to be designed to defame him by association, then I'll do what I can to have you stopped. '' [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Since you ignored and deleted my warning, and again added "guilt-by-association" material to [[Eric Lerner]] in violation of [[WP:BLP]], I think I'll have to figure out how to report you now... [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:25, 30 December 2008
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- 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.")
- 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.")
- 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)
Woodward effect AFD
Just FYI, I updated myself from Delete to Keep. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but to just review the new sources. It could still go either way, and I have no preference in any event. It's a fairly big shift in material for an article of the size, so I just want to make sure you see it. I don't know if it's a shift in value, and am up in the air on that (like you can see from my comment). rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
civility
Hey. Do you have a question as to what incivility is taken to be on en.Wikipedia? This isn't a trick/snarky/threatening question. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Random question
Hey Sci, sorry to bother you. I was wondering what a Gianoplumb is? Or maybe someone else watching this knows and could drop me a note? Feel free to delete this if it's in any way bothersome, I was just curious and I hate to miss out on good asides and interesting references. You certainly have some devoted friends who stick up for you. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- User:Giano+"Visions of sugarplums danced in their heads"+"plumbing the depths" = Gianoplumb.
- That's what I thought, but I wasn't aware that you and Giano's paths had ever crossed or that you were even aware of one another. I
didn'tdon't totally get the plumbing thing either... hmmm...I'm still not sure I do.Are you siding with him, or against him? Are you saying that endless discussions with Admins are like getting into the depths of plumbing work and only lead to trouble? Oh well. I'm slow. Nevermind. I'd like to see the two of you work together though, but would it be on a science article or classical architecture? Hmmmm... And here I thought you weren't going to be around until the new year. An early Christmas present? :) Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. I've been told curiosity killed the cat, but I mostly prefer dogs, so hopefully it will all work out okay for me. Take care. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)- Merry Christmas SA. I hope Santa brings you some good stuff. Or that you enjoy whatever holiday or science festival you celebrate this time of year. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but I wasn't aware that you and Giano's paths had ever crossed or that you were even aware of one another. I
Is this: Chronic endothelial injury hypothesis a subject that interests you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not for any reason I can currently see. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- What subjects are you interested in? On new page patrol I run across a lot of random stuff. Are you mostly after alternative medicine and skeptics? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although I monitor some of the more popular alternative medicine topics, I am more interested in credulous content in general rather than any one specific topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Credulous or credible? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Credulous. The credible content stays and I have little to no interest in it not being an expert in it myself. Note that this only applies to (alternative) medicine related articles. On other articles where I have some expertise in the credible content, I therefore become interested. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, I get it now, credulous it is. I have stuck to psychiatry articles mainly thus far WRT interacting with such material. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that (as in, I'm sorry you have to deal with the credulous amateur attacks on psychiatry creeping into our encyclopedia that does not particularly care for WP:EXPERTs). If you ever need any help with the credulous anti-psychiatry types (and they are legion -- and well-funded), let me know. It's somewhere on my to-do list between searching through the massive number of WP:PARANORMAL articles and trying to rewrite UFO according to the few sources written by actual observational astronomers. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, I get it now, credulous it is. I have stuck to psychiatry articles mainly thus far WRT interacting with such material. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Credulous. The credible content stays and I have little to no interest in it not being an expert in it myself. Note that this only applies to (alternative) medicine related articles. On other articles where I have some expertise in the credible content, I therefore become interested. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Credulous or credible? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although I monitor some of the more popular alternative medicine topics, I am more interested in credulous content in general rather than any one specific topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- What subjects are you interested in? On new page patrol I run across a lot of random stuff. Are you mostly after alternative medicine and skeptics? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much SA. I'm speechless. I'm sure I'll come up with a reponse in time, however, so enjoy the silence while it lasts. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas! | ||
Template:Sound sample box align right
Template:Sample box end ජපස, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
Seasons Greetings
Kudos
Thank you for doing it this way this time. Eventually the community will hopefully tire of civil POV-pushing and general promotion of undue credulity, but until then ... meh. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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/Fringe science/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/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Electric Universe of Juergens-Velikovsky/Scott/Thornhill
Thank you for your message. With the lapse of time since the ruckus at "Plasma cosmology" over a year ago, I was wondering whether anyone would see my comments or how long discovery might take. Alas, I am NOT a "cosmic electrician" or otherwise specially qualified in electromagnetism and therefore need the back-up of those who are, such as Tom Bridgman, Tim Thompson, and others who were active on talk.origins in the mid-'90s evaluating the outrageous claims of David Talbott (and see, too, the Pensée entry linked to his bio) who is the titular guru at kronia.com and thunderbolts.info. BTW: Scott's book The Electric Sky was reviewed in The Observatory in August 2007 by editor David Stickland, who though skeptical was basically clueless.
Talbott objects to the "Criticism" section of his Wikipedia entry, and is currently trying to pressure me to modify it to his specifications. Were this section to be subjected to a full-blown editorial review, I am sure much would not measure up to Wikipedia standards on various grounds, but to the best of my ability all the content for which I am responsible is true, regardless Talbott's self-serving quibbles. But, one of the trickier grounds is "verifiability" BECAUSE very little concerning Talbott's activities is verifiable with widely available public sources. MOST of his activity has been on his own moderated fora (kronia-list, kronia-talk, thunderbolts, etc.) and earlier his two and a half year sojourn on talk.origins, which generated alot of material, but not much has survived the transitions to archiving at dejanews to googlegroups. The most substantial published criticism of Talbott's mythological work is Leroy Ellenberger's "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" in Skeptic 3(4), 1995, but it is no comprehensive, scholarly critique. The original version was posted to talk.origins in early 1996 with a much expanded version available at <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html>. The initial version of Talbott's bio entry was nothing but hagiography as though he was the next best new thing in "comparative mythology" when his 1980 book The Saturn Myth was panned by non-specialist reviewers and remaindered with Doubleday NOT even making back its author's advance and no one in academia has embraced his nonsense. In contrast, Sitchin's 1976 The Twelfth Planet is still going gangbusters--mentioned just for sake of comparison.
As an example of what could be an issue in editing the "Criticism" section is the sentence about Grubaugh's "polar configuration" model being disproved by two astronomers: Victor Slabinski (in Aeon 3:6, 1994) and Tom Van Flandern (talk.origins, Dec. 1994--but not archived). Talbott in his weirdly delusional way claims these disproofs were overturned by subsequent work by Bob Driscoll and Bob Bass; but this simply is NOT correct as the "howler monkeys" (e.g., Tim Thompson, Paul Gans, Wayne Throop, Karl Hahn, Robert Grumbine, Burch Seymour, Richard Harter, et al.) on talk.origins made perfectly clear in 1995-1996 (but never accepted by Talbott). Well, I've gone on too long here; I am sure you get the idea. It would not be so bad were Talbott simply the proverbial lone crackpot Velikovsky wannabe, such as John "Angiras" Ackerman or Donald Patten or James McCanney. But Talbott has serious funding from several wealthy retired entrepreneurs with Velikovskian roots, the most notable being A. Bruce Mainwaring, UPenn 1947 & Penn Trustee, whose $7,000,000 got his name on the new wing of Penn's University Museum. Mainwaring underwrote the stipends for Velikovsky's summer assistants in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as funding recent activities of Alfred de Grazia and Anthony Peratt [expeditions to catalogue and document petroglyphs allegedly motivated by stupendous auroral displays headed by Marinus Anthony "Rens" van der Sluijs (webmaster for mythopedia.info), reported in Fortean Times no. 233, 2008]. And so it goes.... Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Eric Lerner WP:BLPviolation
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Eric Lerner. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The template is the easy way to do this, but let me just add that between your clear WP:COI with respect to Eric Lerner and your long history of trying to paint the worst possible picture of him as a way to help discredit his science, you are sinking pretty low in adding material not even supported by the ultra-flaky political attack book that you cite. You should really recuse yourself from editing this bio that you have long attacked. I'm sure there are other good wikipedia editors who can carry on and have a better chance of coming to a consensus if you'll stay out of it. If you put unsourced material again, that appears to be designed to defame him by association, then I'll do what I can to have you stopped. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you ignored and deleted my warning, and again added "guilt-by-association" material to Eric Lerner in violation of WP:BLP, I think I'll have to figure out how to report you now... Dicklyon (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)