User talk:ජපස: Difference between revisions

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. 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.")
2. 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.")
3. 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)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User unblocked per consensus at WP:AE, and so that they can comment on the situation. However, I recommend being more polite in the future to avoid misunderstandings like this incident. Request handled by: Jehochman Talk 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, Jehochman, for the advice. I will respond at WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but again, the result of the 2nd AfD was keep, and you can look up all sources (books and papers), they all exist. --Little sawyer (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they hav received attention, read result of the 2nd AfD where I listed all sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. Please read it, it said that the sources existed, that theyy were numerous, and fairly reliable, etc. Please read before asserting nonsense. Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anonymous. The nameLittle Sawyer appears on each step of history.--Little sawyer (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:OWN. You can't overturn the decision of the 2nd AfD by yourself. --Little sawyer (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just crazy (I saw that you deleted the article on Megalithic Yard as well). If that is not notable, then you might just remove 'Prince Charles' or 'Big Ben' as well. I hope vandalists such as you will be blocked soon. You have nothing to do in editing encyclopedias.--Little sawyer (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that I have discovered that Little Sawyer used to post as Snicoulaud Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snicoulaud, who is Sylvain Nicoulad aks Sylvain Tristan (and who I believe put up an article about himself last year). Nicoulad/Tristan wrote Les Lignes D'or: Pourquoi Toutes Les Capitales Des Premieres Grandes Civilisations Furent erigees Sur Ces Axes and is a supporter of Alan Butler, etc. but didn't declare his interest when adding edits about his book. Which reminds me, is there a way of looking at talk pages, etc of deleted or merged articles? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never hidden I used to post as Snicoulaud, I even explained myself at the time. It doesn't change that someone like ScienceApologist (who has recently deleted 'Megalithic Yard,' for example), should be blocked. 'Megalithic Yard' was an ancient work and that of many contributors to boot. What is more the subject is unquestionably notable. I am sincerely wondering why nobody has restored the article yet. --Little sawyer (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC) By the way the fact that he never replies to me says it all.[reply]

Howdy. I am proud to consider myself a rationalist, proponent of the scientific method, etc, etc, - i.e., I think that you and I are basically on the same team.
I see that you've been blocked a number of times, some of which have not been overturned.
It seems to me that we can summarize this situation that, theoretical considerations about Science, truth, and free speech aside, empirically, your behavior has frequently been problematical in the eyes of Wikipedia administrators. It further seems to me that you must be on pretty thin Wiki-ice at this point.
Perhaps the better part of wisdom would be to exercise control over the less civil of your impulses. If you don't, it seems obvious that very soon you will be subject to a long-term or permanent block, which may not be overturned.
I'm obviously not telling you anything that you don't already know. It's also obviously up to you how you want to proceed. Best wishes. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, pay no attention to the shiny thing dangling above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not issue many unblocks. Please do not squander this one. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here, where you are quoted and might want to participate.

embrace or reject SPOV ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading over that, I'd say it looks like a minefield. If you choose to hazard a glance over there, let me humbly suggest that you do not respond directly the statements about you. If you find ad hom attacks against you, make note of it here or on the talk page of someone you trust, and let them refactor the comments for you. I'll offer myself as a (non-admin) editor willing to help you with this if you wish to take part. Antelan^talk 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SA,

Would you mind running me through how you estimated the ionized hydrogen/free electron scattering cross section and so determined that it is insufficient for the grey extinction needed to explain the SNe results?

I hope you can relate—dark energy strikes me as wildly speculative, and yet it is presented (at least in much of the popular press) as if it were beyond reproach. It seems so much more likely that we've simply not accounted for everything. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Thomson total cross section? I'm not getting the numbers to work out. Also, assuming 10 Mly would bring us up to 2% of photons. — kwami (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll mull that over, and have a friend who's also interested.

Since you've been so helpful, mind if I ask you another? I've never understood how anything could fall into a black hole from the time frame of the outside world, and therefore how a black hole, once formed, could increase in mass during the life of the universe. They are (or were) called "frozen stars" in Russian, cuz time freezes at the event horizon. I've read (maybe in Reiss?) that that was a real conundrum in the 1960s, until someone resolved it, but I've never been able to track down how it was resolved, or why it's no longer considered a paradox. — kwami (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's the first time anyone has able to answer that for me.

How certain is the 1 H per m³ figure? Is it theory dependent / estimated average density of the universe? Would 10 times that density be detectable to our instruments? — kwami (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have been treating John254 is a case in point. You have been speaking to him as if he were an inferior being. It is not a good idea to tell someone that they should do there homework. Wikipedia is a social experiment. Your opinions are very often scientifically sound but unless you learn how to be diplomatic you are likely going to find yourself being blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a primer on diplomacy would be useful. I am not sure that there is one but if there isn't perhaps you should simply review everything you have to say several times before you send it. I sincerely hope you learn how to avoid refactoring by learning how to avoid pissing people off in the first place. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'tis more of the same Jefffire (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you that I am not trying to bait you SA. But Jeffire's advice is extremely sound. I do not require a response from you so there is no need for you risk saying something that might be taken the wrong way, I apologize ahead of time if I have said anything to upset you. That was not my intention. :Albion moonlight (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read Talk:Eric Lerner a bit more carefully and decide who is being treated most badly. You might also look at his block log to see that he has a reputation for behaving in that fashion: it isn't just me who has a problem with him. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of this situation, but in our Wikipedia activities it doesn't matter who is being treated most badly. This is extremely important.

"But he started it" or "I am being treated worse than him" are not relevant. If we violate any of the rules (especially persistently), we can be warned and eventually blocked or banned, regardless of what's going on with other Wikipedians. (WP:GOFISHING). Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, all of us being human, when one's motes are on display whilst others' beams are ignored, what consistency do we have? Spending your time criticizing me may make you feel better, but avoiding criticism of the other involved parties makes me inclined to think you are simply baiting. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia is so decentralized and that nobody is really in charge except in the most extreme cases, I don't think that we can expect a very high level of consistency.

Also, I'm certainly not baiting (if you're really interested you can take a look at similar posts I've made to others in the past.) Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you'd react that way.

From my POV, the rationality and science folks such as yourself are very much needed around here, and the less time they spend being blocked, the better. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a social experiment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You might try that on for size, Albion. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will read Talk Eric Learner. Once again I apologize if I appear to be taking sides. I think that a strong case can be made that Wikipedia is in fact a social experiment because of the fact that everyone is allowed to edit it. I did not realize that it made the the claim that it is not a social experiment. I also think it would be a much more reliable Encyclopedia if it were to hire experts such as yourself to write it. I sincerely hope you are able to avoid being blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia needs you and others like you. Thanks for your participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and democracy is a social experiment that has been going on in a very meaningful way for the last couple hundred years. At a certain point, the term "social experiment" loses its meaning. Antelan^talk 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own working hypothesis is that Wikipedia is in fact a social experiment, being conducted within the context of building an online encyclopedia. I can't prove that but if you look at what the boss has said about "online communities" and so forth I think that's pretty clear. For better or worse the online encyclopedia appended to the experiment has become widely used, so those of us who care about things like accuracy get sucked into into it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those of us who care about things like accuracy get sucked into into it - Frankly, if it weren't for that key concern, I (and you, I'm sure) would have several hours per day of my life back so I could go do some "social experiments" of my own... Antelan^talk 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jtrainor it has been suggested that a more appropriate forum for the pattern of behavior of Jtrainor might be a RFC.

If rather taking the high road and putting this behind you, you decide that you want to pursue your civility concerns, I had a series of interactions with Jtrainor in Oct.-Feb. that I would be willing to share as part of a pattern of continued Wikicivility issues. GundamsЯus (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user had been seeming to improve behavior, I am willing to believe that the recent actions have been a blip on the road to generally civil behavior. I think the best course may be to keep track of this incident and keep watch. If the 'blip' turns to a trend in the wrong direction, then bring this evidence all to a RFC as solid proof of longstanding and unrepentent pattern of behavior. GundamsЯus (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to file anything you think is neccesary against me, that I may be speedily exonerated. I have nothing to hide. Jtrainor (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider appearing on [1]? It is easiest with a headset, or you can use a microphone and speakers. It is also possible to do it with a telephone in the US and Canada. I have done it twice so far and it was sort of fun. --Filll (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't he have to have his voice disguised, to avoid reprisals? Mind you, that would be pretty cool itself. I'd recommend a really electro vocoder effect, like from the original cylons.--feline1 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has often appeared previously.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can he do the cylon voice anyway? That would be totally awesome. Jefffire (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is add on software that allows this, if he wants to.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that those edits are put in by one of the authors -- hm, just searched on his name and this comes up [2] - this was before I brought it up on the Fringe nb and you replied, but was evidently somehow sparked by me. I'm not sure I understand it all. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINTY demonstration in progress? - 66.30.77.62 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was a step missing from the nomination process for this article. I completed that for you. Regards, — BillC ^talk 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman is a discussion about which you may care. I think you'll care because of the prior history - but as with some prior items above on this page, it may be wiser for you to refrain from participating. The decision is yours. GRBerry 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with these personal attacks? In that case, let me take you down to Chinatown. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that Ian Tresman deserves a fair hearing. I am very sorry, I should have made that a lot clearer. I don't agree with the first two paragraphs. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this IP is clearly a sock of Iantresman. Look at the whois. Shall I file the SSP or will you? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you. Full disclosure: I am helping him file an appeal against his community ban. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a notice on AE. Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report closed; the diff was not that egregious and today you get a little slack given the circumstances. Please do be careful though. Some of your complaints today (related to the Arbitration filing) have proven out differently than your original assumptions/guesses. Proving that you can be civil and assume good faith when under extra stress would be a good sign. GRBerry 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the pseudoscience categories until I found your page. I'm having some trouble on the Technical analysis article. Technical analysis is supposed to be a way of identifying patterns in stock prices that predicts the future direction of the stock (buy/sell signals). Pretty much all scientific research suggests that stock prices are pretty close to random.

It fits the 'pseudoscience' tag for me. But a writer (a vested interest) has said that calling something 'pseudoscience' is just an opinion, so I can't put the tag on. So, are there any criteria or guidlines for when this tag can be used? Regards ItosLemma (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Analysis is supported by many academic papers, although it is not generally accepted at this point. I have spoken with some profs and they tell me it is gaining. That is hearsay, and I would never put that in. I have lost count as to how many articles I've read over the years saying that random walk is just plain wrong. EMH is under attack. Calling TA fringe is absolutely wrong.

I do not get one red cent from TA. I am no longer a technical analyst. I am on the board of the Market Technicians Assocation (until the end of June). I do not get paid for that. I aim to educate those that have as yet to open their eyes that TA works. I will continue to edit in an honest manner, as I always have. And I will remove the Malkiel quote. The quote is bogus. A random generator can generate anything. That proves nothing. TA is the application of behavioral finance in the financial markets, IMO. I cannot stand down from wreckless, biased and ill-informed attacks on TA. I am an expert in the field. I have a degree in economics and mathematics. I did not believe in TA either, until I tested it myself, used it and found it worked. Sposer (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to turn into an edit war. The article is full of references to papers that debink TA, and arguments against are there. I can come up with countless papers that support it from academia, beyond the work from Lo, LeBaron and the U.S. Fed. London School of Economics, Notre Dame, and many others schools have professors that have RECENTLY written papers finding positive alpha from TA strategies. Pseudoscience is already linked in the article. It is not clearly pseudoscience. Even Nicholas Taleeb doesn't beat TA up in his book, "Fooled By Randomness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I have been editing the TA page and Elliott Wave for a long time. Other editors have known my background, whether pro-TA or anti-TA, and never saw a conflict in my edits. I am okay with the Elliott Wave pseudoscience categorization, because although I believe it works, there is no way I can prove it. Until I can, EW sadly fits the pseudoscience description, even if I am confident it isn't. But TA, in general works, and there's enough positive academic evidence to make such a categorization questionable at best.Sposer (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm fairly certain that TA is nonsense, it's probably not pseudo-science, but cargo cult economics, a different field of nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was: what is the definition of pseudoscience? E.g. is astrology pseudoscience, since it doesn't pretend to be a science? Is pretence to science necessary? Etc. ItosLemma (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this as an Evangelical Christian who like James Clerk Maxwell remains in "awe of authority" [3] and believe in religious experience as described in the Bible. I've come to respect some of your contributions on wikipedia. Still, I'm curious: Are there any guru-busting edits in your past that you now regret? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is coming out soon, and the Creationists are out in force whitewashing the article. I'm at 3RR, and you need to read the edits. Maybe I'm a not reading it right, but I'm seeing a lot of BS. Your help is requested.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Science Apologist. I've seen your name in many pages on Wikipedia and often agree with what you say, but just as a friendly advice, it is probably not the best idea to focus in bashing films that are scientifically suspect. Of course sometimes we see messages in movies we don't agree with. But I admit that when I saw Triumph of the Will in class, I loved it immediately. This doesn't make me a Nazi or Hitler-symphasizer. I hated Birth of a Nation not because it is racist, rather because it is unthinkably boring for my taste. Films are made to entertain and open people's eyes to the world, to exchange images and words. The post by Orangemarlin makes me curious to see the movie :P. So, I would suggest your scientific ardor to be directed somewhere other than the picturesque arena of film-making. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um the goal is not to bash the film. The goal is not to have an article praising the film or whitewashing it. The goal is to have an article that clearly and accurately describes the film, the positive and negative reviews, the content, and the controversies around it, as we are required by NPOV. Some do not want that of course. On both sides. But that is what we are aiming for.--Filll (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Megalithic yard was recently restored. I considered reverting, but couldn't find where the consensus discussion to merge it had taken place. Was there in fact such a discussion? --Random832 (contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But said by someone with more sway than I: [4] Antelan^talk 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that while you were removing some of Reddi's pseudoscience links, you also deleted portal links such as to portal:energy. Was this a mistake, or did you have a reason for this that I'm missing? A link from unlimited energy to the energy portal doesn't seem inappropriate to me.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I restored the portal link. While I was there, I also put in "see also" links to the two main pseudoscience articles. A "see also" link to an article on pseudoscience ideas about energy from nothing seems appropriate in an article about scientific or sci-fi conceptions of "unlimited energy". I oppose adding any pseudoscience to this article unless it is handled in a strictly NPOV way, but a "see also" link is satisfactory because one presumes those articles should themselves comply with the NPOV policy. --Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your contributions, I am sure you will want to contribute to discussion here... Talk:Telluric_current#List_of_patents SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the discussion on this issue rather than just reverting Reddi. Discussion is more likely to resolve the issue - and I'm sure you could make a good case for not listing patents - whereas reverting will probably lead to admin involvement, blocks, and so on. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you! And, good to see you still keeping people honest even though I don't always agree with you. I've had to scale back my involvement with Wikipedia to make more time for realworld writing but I stick my head in a few times a week. The paranormal project kinda stagnated and I drifted over to trying to improve some of the new-agey type sociological articles that were filled with wackadoo claims such as Indigo children. I sure would love for you to take a peek at that mess and see if you could add some balance.

What I'd like to do is document what the propoennts believe and then add some skeptical reactions to those beleiefs but I tend to get shot down every time. Considering how widespread the belif in this is, I feel it's important to have a detailed and well-referenced article that goes through all the aspects of this new age reaction to autism and then add in the skeptical analysis. I feel this way because Wikipedia is a place where troubled parents come for info. I'd like those parents who maybe first hear about the Indigo Childrena nd the Crystal Kids (an alleged subgroup within Indigo) from Pro-Inidgo sites to come here and see that it's not a widely accepted concept and that it's mostly a unqiue marketing tool designed to fleece parents of Autistic kids.

Do you think you could take a look? I'd be so grateful if you could. There are a few other quackery & fringe articles I'm interested in that could use some help and some psychology articles as well that have just jumped into the deep end of the nonsense pool. If hard science is more your thing and you'd rather not, I'd understand. If you really want to hold your nose and dive right in,to bad fringe articles, you should look at Alien hand syndrome, Simcha Jacobovici (the so-called Naked Archeologist whos is neither an archeologist nor naked on his show!), The Lost Tomb of Jesus which is filled with faulty logic statements, Reptilian humanoid‎ which long ago stopped making any type of sense, Nordic aliens‎ and Carlos Castaneda which borders on hero-worship.

It may be that we can't even hope to help make sense of many of those, but I try when and where I can! The Castaneda article bugs me the most because I have degrees in Anthropology & Folklore and despite the fact that he was lauded by both groups of academics when he first published, he is now accepted as a fraud and a con artist by most of the same folks who celebrated his every word back then. It's hard to find a way to put that kind of information into a biography article and I've wondered if perhaps I should do a break-out article on the systems he promoted, the Folklore he claimed to have discovered and then systematically outline the debunking of the same. If you have any thoughts on this, I'd be glad to read them. As you can see, my interests in hard science tend to get trumped by my fascination with folkore and cultural shift.

I'll shut up now! I'll just say again - good to see you and good to see you're still holding articvles up to a high standard. You and I may not agree on many things but it is always helpful to have a skeptic who is willing to spend some time on the fringe topics with an eye towards improvement. LiPollis (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comments or replies about my "final" third opinion at Talk:Tired light#Third opinion? Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Homeopathy/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/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please redact your comments at Talk:Tired light.[5] While frustration is understandable, such comments are sure to be construed as uncivil and it only hurts you to give in to your frustration in such a manner. Thanks for understanding! Vassyana (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO [6]! I've been editing Wikipedia for years and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've already done talks about aspects of wikipedia? We're going to be doing skypecasts by the Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly crew now. I'm wondering if you might be interested in presenting a lecture?

It's important to show people different views and approaches to wikipedia.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. thanks! --Jim Butler (t) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScienceApologist.

Sorry to hear you've retired, but completely understand. I have taken up your cause in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme discussions. I am not a scientist but feel I have enough grasp of the prinicples of reason, logic, and scientific method to be able to tell whether a particular claim is being presented fairly. If you, or any other pseudoscience fighter on Wiki wish to give me some advice, it would be welcome. As for Wiki being a social experiment, it's an experiment that is not necessary. Wiki, and the whole open source software phenomenon, are examples of anarchy in action -- and anarchy has been dicredited since, I don't know, Christ died on the cross? "Christ: an anarchist who succeeded. That's all." - Andre Malraux ermadogErmadog (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for tat???? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Parapsychology, to use an Irish saying, there's a pair of you in it. I have warned Martinphi that he may be banned from the page if he continues to edit war, and while I can't take that action against you, I would strongly encourage both of you to discuss rather than edit war. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following edits are not civil. Please do not continue to make uncivil edits or you are liable to be blocked under your Arbitration editing restriction.

• [7] ("Martin needs to get his head out of the sand... why can't we just get rid of him?")

  Why is this uncivil? Please explain. I think that Martin is acting like an WP:OSTRICH. I also think he needs to be kicked off this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [8] (referring to people who disagree with you as "braindead".

  I was referring to people who invent controversies to suit their fantasies about reality. I was not referring to people "who disagree with me" any more than someone who refers to bodybuilders as "behemoths". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Stifle (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Levine2112 says it better than I possibly could. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the baiting trolls acting on my talk pages, let me ask you a question, is it okay for me to advocate that certain people should be kicked off Wikipedia? Is there anything uncivil about this? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Wikipedia would be more able to achieve its goal of becoming a credible and respected reference work if certain individuals were invited to apply their talents elsewhere. I won't get into the policy question of whether it's OK to advocate that, since such discussions tend to go on and on and on. As a practical matter consider whether such an action might be more readily achieved by your own adhering more strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Getting yourself blocked while certain others remained free to press their views here would be counterproductive. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strict adherence to civility policies (which themselves have been gamed and subject to attempted rewrites by certain people I think should be asked to "apply their talents elsewhere") is an interesting thought. Unfortunately, there has yet to be anyone who was able to give me an objective definition for civility that I can universally apply. I am very tired of people trying to "change" me in condescending ways (and I'm not trying to say that you are doing this, Raymond... but see the latest on WP:AE) so I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to follow the specific suggestions of people with regards to the civility issue and ignore those who make broad pronouncements on what I should do "generally" with my "behavior". Interestingly, most of the people making broad pronouncements about civility are also the same people who I think are the best candidates for Wikiremoval. Blocking at Wikipedia is capricious. While I have no desire to be blocked, I have little to no respect for it as a device that works to do anything other than poison the well. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is absolutely hilarious that Levine thinks that him giving SA advice is somehow helpful. It may be one of the more amusing thing's I have yet seen. But SA is not in the wrong for calling people who invent controversies as braindead. All evidence points to that. I think the bigger question is does Stifle think there is a big evolution or global warming controversy outside of the one invented by politicians and other groups. Baegis (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that it's obviously idiotic of me to step in here, but WP:BOLD and all that ...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines civility as "Courteous behavior; politeness." - http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/C0377800.html
courteous: "Characterized by gracious consideration toward others. See synonyms at polite."
"Polite and mannerly imply consideration for others and the adherence to conventional social standards of good behavior." - http://www.bartleby.com/61/34/P0413400.html

Wikipedia's own nutshell definition is "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress."

Every culture has expected its members to display civilty and avoid incivility, and although certain actions have been defined as civil and others as uncivil, no culture has ever had an "objective definition of civility that could be universally applied", and we can't expect one here.
Some people may be trying to change you, and some may be condescending, but the simple fact remains that Wikipedians who are chronically perceived by others as uncivil do eventually get banned. You often seem to imply that you'd prefer not to change your style and to get banned instead. That's obviously your choice. Personally, I'd prefer that Wikipedia keep you.
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Writtenonsand? I agree with you almost 100%. However, there is one thing I will say, if someone wants to have a dialog with me and explain why they take something I wrote to be uncivil, I'm more than happy to engage with them in that dialog. I'm instituting my two(three)-point plan. I will refer to it often. Maybe one day it will be policy for how to deal with incivility. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever my opinion may be worth to anyone: your plan strikes me as unusual but reasonable. Hoping that that it works well for you. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commend your tireless effort to defend against the Global Warming deniers of the big corporations, as I've seen you doing such since my anon IP days. However, I don't understand why you have such a peevish attitude against our fellow Charles Fort. He may be a little eccentric, but an admirable (and comic) figure notwithstanding. Did Fort or his followers done any injustice to you? Chimeric Glider (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[9] It turns out that the list of scientists who deny global warming was artificially inflated. Oops? Antelan^talk 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this systematic review to the reiki article. This entailed an almost complete rewrite of the Scientific research section to reflect this professional systematic assessment of the literature and to substantiate or remove previously uncited statements. I also largely removed the description of sham reiki in favor of a link to blind experiment.

If you get a chance to look it over and concur, I would like to remove the {{Totally-disputed-section}} tag. Please share your thoughts at Talk:Reiki#Scientific research. Regards. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know why the step numbers at the top of your page display in my Firefox browser as "1. 3. 4."? The wikicode looks like I would expect it to, and renders correctly in both Opera and IE. It even changed to "1. 2. 3." when I clicked "edit" to check the markup, so I cannot fiddle with it in preview mode. If you do not know off the top of your head then do not worry about it, I can poke around in the site bowels as well as the next insanely busy grad student.

In any case, good luck with your policy. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I modified it a bit, hit "preview", and it looked good (1...2...3). Upon saving, however, my changes didn't do squat (1...3...4). Definitely a ghost in the machine. Antelan^talk 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be notified of this. Cardamon (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's[10] going to be reverted. WP:PSCI sets the bar of "generally considered pseudoscience" at astrology. When's the last time the CIA put $20 mil into the study of astrology? I know, "condescending" and all of that, but don't you discriminate at all on what you consider to be "generally"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does the CIA determine what is and isn't science? The CIA is allowed to invest in pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being discussed here - 66.30.77.62 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the in-universe tag really appropriate at mokele-mbembe? diff. I thought that was just for fiction articles. (That is, articles for topics that are clearly fictional, not for legends and the like.) The totally disputed tag is good enough, I think. Zagalejo^^^ 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a specific example? The bulk of the article focuses on real-world expeditions to the Congo. I don't mean to be a pest, but I might try to clean up that article one day, and I need a clearer understanding of why you put that tag there. Zagalejo^^^ 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm still confused. The article is far from perfect, but it seems to make it clear that the alleged sightings are just claims, rather than facts. Again, could you point to at least one specific section of the article that merits an in-universe tag? Zagalejo^^^ 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...a large creature reported to live..." That makes it clear that it's just a rumored creature. Zagalejo^^^ 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. Books like this treat it as something that it might actually exist. I'm not saying it does exist, but there's a difference between a cryptid and an elf. What literature do you have in mind? Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the book to show that people report that the animal might exist. Are you suggesting that no one has even claimed the animal is real? Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no significant community of people who believe that elves are real. There are people out there who think that the mokele-mbembe is real. The article must reflect that fact. (Yes, we should make it very clear that there is no hard evidence for the animal's existence. But it's wrong to pretend that there is no dissenting view.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I actually thought about the Icelanders after I posted that comment. :) It's still not the same thing, though. I mean, I don't think people report elf sightings, or go on elf-hunting expeditions... But let's get back on point. You said that there are "major pieces of notable literature" that discuss the mokele-mbembe within the context of folklore and mythology. Can you recommend anything specific? I'm not seeing much at Google Scholar. Zagalejo^^^ 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that 66.96.128.64 may be a sockpuppet IP of yours and I have opened my concern up for discussion here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go to Talk:Remote_viewing#Discussion_of_alternatives_and_addition_of_navigational_template.28s.29 and say if you agree on using those templates and moving the pseudoscience infobox to the criticism section where the scientific claims are discussed? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was fun. I didn't record my results, but it was good to think about. ABlake (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have tagged this page with something that reads "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2008)". Please, on the article talk page, initiate the discusion referrred to, making explicit exactly what contributes to the non-neutrality of the article and also please make explicit which factual inaccuracies you are aware of. We cannot work towards consensus on these issues without you providing this information. SmithBlue (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, while I agree with you on the title of the page, you probably should have at least tried to get a consensus on the page first. This is going to turn ugly really quick.

Oh, and you didn't bother to move the talk page's archives. I'm going to leave them be for now, in case a revert-war starts. If not, I'll rename them appropriately this evening. -- Kesh (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the long-since-dispatched Dynamic Duo of Carfiend and Gravitor being around to raise Cain, I suspect that renaming the page is going to cause trouble. Good luck. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really would like the bits that I wrote back, especially the stuff about 'high copper poles'. I obtained that through a German friend who knows all about this nonsense and had access to the 19th century source. People might find the claim elsewhere without realising it's been explicitly refuted and I wanted the article to show that. I think it gave balance on the skeptical side.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version doesn't make sense. The copper poles don't relate directly to Dendera, they were originally part of an attempt to prove that the AE used electricity. Lockyer is in fact more directly related. Have you, by the way, ever seen my web page? [11]--Doug Weller (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you'd reverted my latest edit, but in fact I never saved it due to an edit conflict. Here it is, what do you think?

There are some amateur pseudoarcheologists who believe that the relief is an electric lamp.^[1][2] They have used a text referring to "high poles covered with copper plates" to argue this.^[3] No serious researcher entertains the idea and one Dr. Bolko Stern has written in detail explaining why the copper covered tops of poles (which were lower than the associated pylons) do not relate to electricity or lightning, pointing out that no evidence of anything used to manipulate electricty had been found in Egypt and that this was a magical and not a technical installation.^[4] --Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Agh, that wasn't my text, mine is:

In contrast to this interpretation, there is a fringe science hypothesis that departs significantly from orthodox Egyptology theories in which researchers believe it is a representation of Ancient Egyptian technology.^[5] As far back as 1894, J. N. Lockyer mentioned a colleague's humorous suggestion that electric lamps would explain the absence of lampblack deposits in the tombs.^[6] This quote (or even just a comment that Lockyer mentioned electric light) is sometimes used by fringe writers as evidence for ancient electric lights, leaving out the rest of the context in which Lockyer makes it clear that he think the Ancient Egyptians used reflected light to work. Controversy exists over the images as interpreted as electric lamps based on comparison to similar modern devices (such as Geissler tubes, Crookes tubes, and arc lamps).^[7] These authors have suggested that the Ancient Egyptians had some form of understanding of the electric phenomena,^[8] from observing lightning and interacting with electric fish (such as the Malapterurus electricus) or other animals (such as electric eels). They have used a text referring to "high poles covered with copper plates" to argue this^[9] but Dr. Bolko Stern has written in detail explaining why the copper covered tops of poles (which were lower than the associated pylons) do not relate to electricity or lightning, pointing out that no evidence of anything used to manipulate electricty had been found in Egypt and that this was a magical and not a technical installation.^[10] Engineers have constructed a working model based on their interpretation of the relief and some authors (such as Peter Krassa and Reinhard Habeck) have produced a basic theory of the device's operation.^[11]

This cuts out the Swedish UFO site so beloved by Redding, and leaves in the Krassa stuff which I think has to be left in. I still want to write a bit more about the electric eels, as there is no evidence for their use until Roman times, nor is there evidence that they had a clue about what lightning was. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to this article. When you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You requested a Third opinion for a dispute with more than two editors invloved. We could bend the standard a bit, but there are many peole listed in your request. I suggest that you submit a request for informal ediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. The backlog is low an I would take this if someone doesn't accept it quickly. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology I think. Last night I got turned around on the chiropractic talk page and thought you had started an edit war, but this morning it was obvious that the war was already happening and you were just trying to help. Please feel free to beat me with a rubber spoon if you like ;-) Or I guess you could just respond on the talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, in part, "It is just plain fact that the Bible contains numerous inaccuracies when interpreted literally (the Sun standing still in the sky, spontaneous combustion of waterlogged wood, water turning into wine, virgin births, people rising from the dead, etc. etc.) This article and indeed editors of this article must acknowledge this universally accepted fact if we are to move forward." This is the very point I've been trying to make on the talk page, indicating to me that since you chastised me then basically agreed with me, you might not have read anything but the post of mine you replied to. I've been pointing out that it is a literalistic interpretation of metaphors, idioms, visions, prophecy, etc. in the Bible that is being used as the fringe position in the article, a dividing wedge between science and religion where none exists. I.e., this is "pseudo-theology" (like pseudoscience). --Faith (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a literalist interpretation fringe? No. It is just an interpretation. Okay, then what, in your opinion, determines a fringe interpretation? IMO, if two Church fathers interpreted something one way, and all the other Church fathers interpreted something in the opposite manner, then the two represent the fringe belief and should not be represented as religion vs. science. If all the Christians through the ages interpret something (in line with scientific knowledge of the subject) except for a small minority who interpret it differently, then the fringe belief lies with that small minortiy. Like you point out with pseudoscience subjects, those small numbers of people represent the fringe opinion, and as such, I'm trying to prevent them receiving WP:UNDUE (especially as they keep being replaced as dominate control of the section). --Faith (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) "A case could be made for deleting the article wholesale for this reason": I wouldn't object. 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FaithF is trying to tout Biblical literalism beyond its DUE, that's really all that is going on here. Church fathers are notable, as Church fathers, but they have no jurisdiction over the philology of the Hebrew Bible, and their opinion, however notable in itself and to its impact on Christianity, will be irrelevant to a discussion of the content of the actual Hebrew. There are 1600 years between Augustine and current scholarship, which would make Augustine's opinions look a little... dated if presented as a secondary (instead of primary) source. It is perfectly notable (and indeed a point against Biblical literalism) that Augustine did not feel compelled to believe in a flat Earth, in spite of the Hebrew Bible. But Augustine's not feeling compelled to believe in a flat Earth hardly equates to "the Hebrew Bible doesn't contain allusions to a flat Earth" unless you claim that (a) Augustine was a perfect scholar of Hebrew, and (b) Augustine was a Biblical literalist and would have believed anything just because it was in the Bible, just like a US Midwestern halfwit creationist today. Point (a) is giving Augustine rather too much credit (the man didn't even read Greek), while point (b) is giving him rather too little.... dab (��) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an amazing misstatement of the situation, DAB. I've repeatedly pointed out the difference between reading in a literalistic manner, and understanding idioms, metaphors, descriptions of visions, etc. on the talk page, which is the complete opposite of touting Biblical literalism. No wonder I'm not getting through if you are going to say black is white and white is black. --Faith (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time, users come on to Wikipedia after hearing a sermon from their pastor on why their particular church doesn't believe in a "literal reading" of the Bible but rather in a "plain reading" of the Bible. These people object to the term biblical literalism and instead prefer biblical inerrancy. Their argument is that when someone in the Bible says "Wash me and I will be whiter than snow" nobody believes that they will literally be whiter than snow. However, this is just a strawman. A "literal interpretation" is synonymous with a "inerrant interpretation" for all intents and purposes. Generally, an inerrancy position means taking a lot of the Bible for which we have contradictory evidence to be fact in spite of the contradiction. Always giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt is another way to put it. For example, it is known that Herod was not ruling at the same time as Quirinius was governor of Syria. Most Historians say that Luke was just in error. Most biblical literalists (or inerrants) say that the Word of God can contain no error, therefore it is the historians who are wrong. This is how you can tell when someone is a literalist/inerrant. So, I'll ask you, Faith, was Luke right in anchoring Quirinius as governor of Syria at the same time Herod was in power? If you say no, then you are probably as you claim to be, not someone who takes the Bible literally. If you say yes then it looks like you may have been engaging in obfuscation with regards to our discussions and in fact do take much of the Bible literally (though I'll grant you don't take the poetic metaphors literally -- no one does). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but as the article is not titled Faith's position on Science and the Bible, I fail to see how any of my beliefs, or lack thereof, have any bearing on the question I asked, so let me try again. Per Wikipedia guidelines and policy, if two (or even if someone can refute the source I provided and point to even a half dozen) out of all the church fathers took a [super-]literalistic viewpoint and went against the mainstream understanding of their time, shouldn't it be removed from the article for WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE or at least clearly marked as the fringe position? The statement in the article reads, "Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy" (noting this was the OR replacement for the cited text I put in the article). DAB has admitted Lactantius was eccentric, thereby indicating to me what despite what he says, he realises the man was outside the norm. It would be like allowing Kent Hovind's opinions into Big bang to indicate a false divide between science and religion (to use an analogy I hope fits what I think you edit here), when many/most religious scholars do not embrace Hovind's fringe opinions. Wikipedia does not allow this because it's pseudoscience; likewise, pseudo-theology should also be left out. --Faith (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evasive. Okay. I think I'm done with this. When you're ready to answer my question, let me know. The fact that you think that Lactantius is fringe means that you have a very weird interpretation of "fringe". Was Aristarchus fringe? He certainly was eccentric. So was Pythagoras. What a specious argument! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hovind fringe? Or creationists in general? They don't agree with the mainstream, and as such are outside (or fringe). That was my only point about these other two. It's been clarified now. Thanks for your attempt to help. --Faith (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the small side point of Cosmas Indicopleustes and Christian Topography, I'll point out that the scholar who translated the work to English points out in his preface to the work ([12], section entitled "Composition") that "The work was originally in 5 books. Objections led to him adding first book 6 and then further books up to book 10." See also the earlier paragraph "As far as we can judge from the surviving literature, Christians and pagans did not as such hold different views about the shape of the world. Some of the philosophers had supposed a spherical earth, and even calculated its size, and some Christians followed them, particularly if they were educated men. Other philosphers had derided the idea, and some Christians did likewise, such as Lactantius and Cosmas. Naturally Christian writers of this school turned to scripture to illustrate their theme, but their methods of exegesis attracted severe criticism from other Christian authors such as Photius." More specifically, this author concluded that each of books 6-10 of this work were added at separate times in response to repeated criticism of the idea, see [13]. (The things you find while working on article assessment never cease to amaze - but the relevance to totally unexpected disputes is even more amazing.) And if Cosmas is indeed Nestorian, that definitely puts him outside the Christian mainstream all by itself, for that was already a schism/heresy in the 5th century BC, while he is a writer of the 6th century. The evidence from the more complete greek texts of Christian Topography is that at least these texts were copied/revised by Nestorian monks. The only nearly complete manuscript without that evidence is the Vatican copy. GRBerry 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good points. --Faith (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your post at the WP:VPR, I was thinking that this might be hard to get a lot of support for but you might get mileage out of requesting this as a userscript that could be added to users' monobook.js'es. You can request the maiking of scripts at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests. By the way, love your name. Right up my alley, (if I'm correct about what it implies), but I get so annoyed at the credulous hordes that I just stay away from those areas. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read and respond to Talk:Chiropractic #Mass edits made by QuackGuru? In particular the part of that section which mentions your user name? There is a request to self-revert there. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this done. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm an active English Wikipedian User ScienceApologist and I like usurp account User:ScienceApologist here, with zero edits. I register global SUL account ScienceApologist. Can you rename this user? Thanks. --ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post like you are under the name you are trying to usurp as it's confusing. To start this process, please make an edit on your Wikipedia talk page as ScienceApologist noting that you'd like this completed here at en.wikibooks. Thanks. -withinfocus 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Doneish. I have usurped the account for you on en.wikibooks. To finish the transition, please log in to the account with your global password. Please contact me if you have any problems or questions. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! This is like in the Matrix films when everyone keeps turning into Agent Smith!--feline1 (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your tagging of the "Evidence" section in Satanic ritual abuse. User:ResearchEditor has now counter-attacked by tagging the "Skepticism" section. The pov pushing of extreme claims has being going on for months and months in that article. I appreciate that, finally, someone interested in rationalism has made his way in that article. (I personally know Paul Kurtz and many other CSICOP skeptics by the way.) —Cesar Tort 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you created the article and I've mistakenly tagged it as a copyright infringement, mind in helping me clean it up to get it away from being a direct copy & paste from [14]? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for beating me to it and again sorry for the mistaken tag earlier. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do you skeptics place your project tag on every "paranormal" article? it clearly seems to me that you place this tag on every article which you don't agree with. this is not good what ya'll doing here. stop placing these tags on articles where they don't belong and remove the inappropiate ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but adhering WP:NPOV should be considered...don'T ya think. this is not your personal playground and also not the skeptic inquirer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What SA did was not a POV edit (which is why nobody is taking SomeUsr's warning seriously) but a removal of all unreliable sources from the article, which is not a POV edit, but an attempt to make an article to comply with wikipedia's reliability policy. What SA did was correct, and SomeUsr's reversion without adressing the reliability of the sources is incorrect.

However, I suggest SA to bring those sources to WP:RSN where they can be discussed by uninvolved editors without strong opinions on the matter, and make there the general question of wheter we can trust UFO sites for reliable information on UFOs --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with SomeUsr above) For the record, the removals were at [Unidentified_flying_object] and were this one, which got reverted by User:Vufors and this one, which got reverted by User:SomeUsr and compelled him to give the incorrect POV warning

User:SomeUsr thinks that SA is breaking wiki rules (he is not, he is just being harsh while enforcing valid rules), and is also using the block log of SA as an argument for admins not to protect him, without realizing that the blocks were not for POV pushing, but for incivility, see his comentary here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• i suggest you discuss any further changes on the discussion page of the ufo article before making any more changes or even starting another edit war. you violated WP:NPOV without even considering to discuss and find consensus. furthermore, you abused a warning template on User_talk:Vufors who didn't do anything wrong. according to your HUGE block log i suggest that you be more careful the next time you consider "paranormal" topics which don´t fit you hardcore skeptical POV. your steadily violation of npov gets VERY disrupting and i'm unwilling to accept that. i wrote, on the ufo talkpage, what i'll do if you continue.SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see my second comment above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• i disagree, what i did was to restore the consensus version of the article so that we can discuss further changes on the talkpage. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you can have consensus on any talk page to keep clearly unreliable sources on an article --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's take this to the ufo talk instead. i feel that we should not use a user talkpage as a "chat" or forum. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SU has now left, so this is all a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're sure that SU isn't Davkal, right? Antelan^talk 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm. SU is Syracuse University the home of the Syracuse Orange. The Cuse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you so elegantly and succinctly restate, with flavorful sarcasm, the purpose of this encyclopedia! Antelan^talk 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a purpose to this encyclopedia? I'm shocked. Just shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting good at this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:ScienceApologist In repect to your revert [[15]]...

Unidentified flying object‎; 14:37 . . (+184) . . ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 218399999 by Vufors (talk) lacks a source!)

In fact your comment that it lacks a source is why its in the discussion area? I agree with you! Can you take out this POV until the user cites one.

Best regards to you Vufors (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you should probably review User talk:Xenocidic#requesting check for suspected sock puppets and advise. I believe he left it for at least one other admin as well. Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Anon IP netstalking SA....hmmm, has the rank stentch of Davkal all over it... Shot info (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is your notice that I've filed a wikiquette alert about you and OrangeMarlin. this is the link: wp:Wikiquette_alerts#alternative_medicine --Ludwigs2 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG Shot info (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Did someone say something? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I'm just trying to follow the proper procedures.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there SA. Let me say first and foremost that I stand in awe of the work you do on WP:FRINGE articles. I think it is incredibly valuable work, not just to the project, but to the world in general, as so many people turn to Wikipedia for authoritative knowledge on lesser-known subjects. I don't think it is entirely inconceivable that you may have saved lives in helping to ensure accurate information about "alternative" health treatments on Wikipedia.

A recent spurious WP:WQA filed regarding you got me thinking... the fringe pov-pusher in question seemed to be mostly pissed off because you outed him/her for having a conflict of interest in regards to being a vendor of alternative medicine products. While I have no doubt the criticism was valid, I have to wonder if pointing it out did more harm than good? I am pretty sure everyone had already chosen their "teams" by that point, so I doubt something like that would change anyone's mind, and it just gives ammo to the fringers ("He didn't assume good faith!" "He made an ad hominem attack!" "Oh, he did it again!").

Far be it from me to tell you how to handle these fringe articles, if I tried to do what you do I'd be driven to quit Wikipedia within a week. But it was just a thought that occurred to me. Take from it what you will, and keep fighting the good fight! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... --Ludwigs2 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Vassyana#A user you have dealt with previously and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MartinPhi restricted. Vassyana (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to Unidentified flying object: do you have a source that says that was the most recent statistical study? And were the results first published in the Hendry book? (Because if not, the study may be even older than 1979.) I'm not commenting on the results of the survey, which are probably accurate. I'm just surprised that we don't have any newer data. Zagalejo^^^ 04:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't been able to find anything newer, so I'll take your word for it, for the time being, anyway. Thanks for the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Simple_fix and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#next_step, as it directly applies to both you and Martinphi. Vassyana (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that after reading User:Vufors recent edits on Talk:Unidentified flying object, I have left a note on his Talk Page politely asking him to refactor, and to cease such comments directed toward editors in the future. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...is this what you intended? I thought you didn't want the homeopathy stuff in the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the UFO article/talk-page, I noticed that with this edit, you don't say what type of believer he is. Also, on the UFO talk page, you refer to "UFO-believer", and "evidence for UFOs". I don't think these phrases are what you really mean to say. For example, is it really difficult to believe that there are unidentified objects in the sky? Obviously not. However, it's a little kooky to think that E.T. is kidnapping people, or little green men are in flying saucers flying around our planet. See the difference? You should clarify what you're saying, especially in the mainspace. Tparameter (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you're not watching every single plant article with specious claims that they cure everything from male pattern baldness to erectile dysfunction. Typical unsourced claims. In this case, some editor pulled the one article that said cinnamon cures diabetes, and ignored the few hundred that say, "well, maybe not." How do you keep going in this place? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the notice from my talkpage? I really don't mind whether it's deleted or not; but if people are attacking you, bring it up at WP:ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if I courtesy blank the page while the MfD is ongoing? Vassyana (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]