Second Quantization (talk | contribs) →AE, ANI, RFC/U: reply |
Second Quantization (talk | contribs) →AE, ANI, RFC/U: reply |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
Hi, after I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=578444605#Lou_Sander this ANI], I was told by an admin that it should be an [[WP:RFC/U]] instead. I pared the ANI down to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander|just the canvassing problem]], thinking it was simple to address. Not so fast. Incredibly, the user denies everything -- including the opinions of those canvassed -- thus requiring me to demonstrate the opinion of every participant on the Sheldrake talk page, on either side of the aisle -- seemingly an impossible task. Does an AE case require the user to be sanctioned first, or can it apply to pseudoscience generally? What's the best way to address this issue? (Or maybe it should be ignored.) [[User:Vzaak|vzaak]] ([[User talk:Vzaak|talk]]) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, after I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=578444605#Lou_Sander this ANI], I was told by an admin that it should be an [[WP:RFC/U]] instead. I pared the ANI down to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander|just the canvassing problem]], thinking it was simple to address. Not so fast. Incredibly, the user denies everything -- including the opinions of those canvassed -- thus requiring me to demonstrate the opinion of every participant on the Sheldrake talk page, on either side of the aisle -- seemingly an impossible task. Does an AE case require the user to be sanctioned first, or can it apply to pseudoscience generally? What's the best way to address this issue? (Or maybe it should be ignored.) [[User:Vzaak|vzaak]] ([[User talk:Vzaak|talk]]) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Just show a thread at Sheldrake that demonstrates the issue with the specific editors, i.e show them supporting Sander's position in the past. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-#top|talk]]) 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
:Just show a thread at Sheldrake that demonstrates the issue with the specific editors, i.e show them supporting Sander's position in the past. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-#top|talk]]) 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
* Also be careful about tone. Many wikipedians confuse tone with the substance of a complaint. Specifically, many assume if the tone is annoyed or otherwise hostile (possibly due to the disruption of the person they are commenting about), the points raised are not valid. Many wikipedians do not appear to check the diffs (and don't acknowledge when they don't). Rather often they rely on their preconceived notions and make any diffs they have fit that interpretation. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-#top|talk]]) 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:06, 24 October 2013
List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience
I think we are making good headway with our discussion. Thank you for that. Ronz has indicated that since he doesn't approve of the entry in any manner -- in spite of the reliable sources -- there will be no entry. I cannot imagine this is how Wikipedia functions; where a lone dissenter can dictate what goes into an article. I respect that you took out the entry in order to attempt to achieve an consensual version, but how can we ever achieve consensus when one editor has already decided that there will be no entry?
Also, here is the preview of the book on Google where you can read most of the chapter in question. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are processes to achieve consensus but before I do so I must familiarise myself fully with the source. I think I understand Ronz's concern and I have a proposal in mind to deal with the issues. This will take a few days when I have them spare (probably the weekend), IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- All right. Enjoy the read! I found it to be fascinating. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Did you get a chance to read Ruse's chapter this weekend? What are your thoughts about reintroducing the entry now? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not yet. That is one of the issues with giving deadlines! But I will read it soon (or at least what is available through google books). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please message me when you have. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- What did you think? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am reading it at the moment. I will let you know, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've read the material of interest surrounding the earlier period (what Ruse calls the pseudoscience era), and the period up to the 20th century (what Ruse calls the popular science era, where little progress was made in evolutionary biology, i.e before the lead up to Modern evolutionary synthesis). It seems important to note that Ruse appears to operate under an unusual interpretation of what pseudoscience is (reminiscent of Feyerabend). I will try and formulate some text summarising what he proposes, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am reading it at the moment. I will let you know, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- What did you think? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please message me when you have. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not yet. That is one of the issues with giving deadlines! But I will read it soon (or at least what is available through google books). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Did you get a chance to read Ruse's chapter this weekend? What are your thoughts about reintroducing the entry now? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- All right. Enjoy the read! I found it to be fascinating. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relationship between religion and science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi IRWolfie ~ you created Eta Carina Nebula a couple of days ago, as a plausible mis-spelling and redirected it but...what is it a plausible mis-spelling of, since you redirected it to itself? Cheers, LindsayHello 08:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Revert on Criticism of Atheism
Hey. You reverted me on Criticism of Atheism. I already discussed the change on the talk page before I made it. Could you please contribute there? Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My web page clearly states that I am aware of COI. My edit to Parapsychological Association was an update of the President's name, which was about 4 years out of date. You're welcome. Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Read the WP:COI guidelines. COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is something that you should be aware of, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- My profile clearly states that I am aware of COI and my edit to the page was minor. You, however, should probably be aware of WP:HOUND. This is the 3rd time that I've caught you following me, and I'm beginning to find it disruptive. Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Read the WP:COI guidelines. COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is something that you should be aware of, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Tumbleman
You may be interested in this post that I have made to Tumbleman's talk page. Ironically, your opening an arbitration enforcement case has actually helped Tumbleman avoid losing talk page access, because without that case being opened I would have had no hesitation in removing talk page access, but with it I think we have to allow Tumbleman to have somewhere to reply to what is said there. However, that is true only provided there is no more abuse of the talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers, I saw that. It's still continuing [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- If Tumbleman really didn't expect this, then he has a pretty big WP:COMPETENCE problem. I really don't know that I could have made it clearer that he was right on the brink: I even highlighted my warning in a big box in a different colour from from anything else on the page to make it so eye-catching that it could not fail to be noticed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hasty conclusion
A little waiting before going to post some reply would have eliminated the hasty conclusion you have just reached.--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- from your repost [2], it seems my initial summary was correct. It is not your job to trawl through the archives and accuse people of being ignorant of the scientific method based on old posts, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
My repost underlies the fact that you should have waited the detailed explanation instead of jumping to hasty conclusion. I was browsing the archives randomly to see what aspects can be relevant to present discussions. Doing so I have discovered the mentioning of Robert Duncan. Anything else non-sequitur from my repost--5.15.207.240 (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? If you want to go analysing archives and commenting on them in this irrelevant way, start a blog somewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In your view, what are key words for summarizing the removed quotes from Enric Naval?--5.15.207.13 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that you misplaced a reply which does not adress my question about the content/meaning of the removed quotes. Could you answer strictly to the question about the content of the removed quotes from Enric Naval? How do you view the meaning of these quotes in a few key words (like for an abstract of the quotes)?--5.15.207.13 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to have the quotes present here in order to facilitate the understanding of the true meaning of the quotes and thus your answer to my question (and the relevance of the quotes to a certain edit pattern).--5.15.207.13 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Result of your Arbitration Enforcement request
Hi IRWolfie-, your Arbitration Enforcement request regarding User:Tumbleman has been closed. The result was an indef-block of Tumbleman per WP:NOTHERE. You can read the details about the result here. Zad68
14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
How come you attract all the nuts?
[3] EEng (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Forbidden Archeology
Gave the other editor a formal 3RR warning, although I'd already given him an informal one which he ignored. He's over, you are at 3RR so I think you'd better hold back for a while. This will get sorted. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Change in wording on scientific consensus
I noticed that you boldly changed the wording of a sentence in the lead of scientific consensus. That is rather long-standing wording (at least back to 2011), and another editor has reverted your change. I don't feel moved to argue for your version, but if you care to, I'd be interested. The talk page is open. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Switching to ClueBot
MiszaBot is down, so LegoBot is taking over temporarily. However LegoBot apparently has a bug. I'm going to undo LegoBot's recent archiving and start anew with ClueBot. vzaak (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. I mass archiving there just to clear the list. It was getting hard to follow what's going on, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I reported the bug accurately, I think: the bot created the archives but did not remove threads from the main talk page. I'm asking how you determined what to remove: did you check for the archived version of each thread before removing it? I was going to back out LegoBot's changes and let ClueBot run so there would be no human error. At this point, though, maybe I'll just let it be. vzaak (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
AE, ANI, RFC/U
Hi, after I created this ANI, I was told by an admin that it should be an WP:RFC/U instead. I pared the ANI down to just the canvassing problem, thinking it was simple to address. Not so fast. Incredibly, the user denies everything -- including the opinions of those canvassed -- thus requiring me to demonstrate the opinion of every participant on the Sheldrake talk page, on either side of the aisle -- seemingly an impossible task. Does an AE case require the user to be sanctioned first, or can it apply to pseudoscience generally? What's the best way to address this issue? (Or maybe it should be ignored.) vzaak (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just show a thread at Sheldrake that demonstrates the issue with the specific editors, i.e show them supporting Sander's position in the past. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also be careful about tone. Many wikipedians confuse tone with the substance of a complaint. Specifically, many assume if the tone is annoyed or otherwise hostile (possibly due to the disruption of the person they are commenting about), the points raised are not valid. Many wikipedians do not appear to check the diffs (and don't acknowledge when they don't). Rather often they rely on their preconceived notions and make any diffs they have fit that interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)