| Revision as of 07:41, 9 December 2006 editHagermanBot (talk | contribs)95,722 editsm Mathchem271828 didn't sign: "::::I'd not really ever heard of anything having to do with his religious beliefs until I read the article that was here. But yeah go ahead. ..."← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:30, 10 June 2008 edit undoMathchem271828 (talk | contribs)201 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now == | |||
| Sorry to bother you, but as an ] things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion ]. ] 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Mathchem, please ] on my part, I certainly assume that of you. Disingenuous could easily be construed as a fancy word for lying - but I don't think that is what you meant. As I just stated on ], the scientific info absolutely belongs on that page (and should be the main focus of the article IMO - although other previous editors may disagree), but it should not be a cut and paste from the site. | |||
| Your statement about "slowing radiational cooling" just doesn't fit the physics. Most of all it implies that Earth still cools, just at a "slower" rate. In contrast Earth isn't cooling, but is in a (quasi) equilibrium between absorbed and emitted radiation. I'd be glad to discuss the physics with you further, but the bit about "slowing radiational cooling" needs to go. ] 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What you said doesn't make a bit of sense. If you want to revert this then discuss it on the talk page more. ] 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, let's move it to the Global Warming talk page where others can join in. ] 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Concerning citation == | |||
| My concerns are these: | |||
| *The material does have a copyright (which I think is probably not the case, but that's not sufficient reason to include it): Verbatim from ] - "What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source." | |||
| *I would like to prevent another edit war as that has already occurred for the non-scientific material on Fritz's wikipedia entry. Some editors that are very new to Misplaced Pages have accidentally (and innocently because of this inexperience IMO) stirred the flames so I'm erring on the cautious side of Misplaced Pages policy to insure folks ]. | |||
| *Cutting and pasting goes against Misplaced Pages's guideline to ] | |||
| Yes, as long as everything is cited correctly that's fine. ] 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies for being so long-winded. I took a quick look at your edit history. Based on that I think you can be a very helpful source in making the HFS article a good one. I hope you choose to participate in that process. If you decide to revert that change back, feel free to do so knowing I won't revert it back in the near future, but I suspect other editors may do so, and I think a good bit of that info does need to be edited out (e.g. work locations of previous HFS students). Cheers. --] 06:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I've noticed that you have now made accusations against not one but two editors (Roswell and FM). I would suggest you try a bit more ]. That said, I have my own little assumption of bad faith to ask about. We recently had Schaefer attempt to edit the article and then have one of his assistance edit the article. Schaefer then apparently attempted to contact at least one other Misplaced Pages editor whom Schaefer already knew the article. You also have few edits prior to editing this topic. I would therefore inquire if a) you have any connection to the man (in which case you may want to read ] and ]) and b) if Schaefer contacted you. I've responded to most of your concerns on the talk page of the article but would also like to note in regard to your reversion by saying that "The consensus among scientists is that this article should be about his contributions to science" - First I see no evidence of such a consensus and I'm not even sure what you mean. Do you mean scientists editing the article? I don't think you mean "scientists" since that's a very broad category and I doubt you did any poll of them as such or anything else to find out what the scientific consensus was for what should be in the article. Second, in any event, the consensus of Misplaced Pages editors and the relevant Misplaced Pages policies ], ] etc. are what matters, not the consensus of some nebulous group of scientists about what should be on the article. Third, whether you like it or not among the general public Schaefer is most well known for his religious/ID work and that needs to be a substantial portion of the article whether you or Schaefer or all the world's scientists care otherwise. ] 07:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have no connection to Henry Schaefer aside from using his results in my own work. I actually found the biography as I was looking through the biographies of American chemists. I was dismayed to find that his was all about his religious ideas and not about his contributions to science. If that's the lowest common denominator type of information you want in wikipedia then you're welcome to try and continue to trash it. --] | |||
| ::: Schaefer is a very notable chemist and has done some very important work. Of course the article should reflect that. It should however also reflect what he is most well known for in the public eye- his promotion of Christianity and intelligent design. If you want the article improved I suggest you go through and help source the various statements about him as well as maybe take the most relevant details from the otherwise copyvio issues and put them in (note this means details, having lists of universities of where his students are or where he has given lectures are not helpful). ] 07:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd not really ever heard of anything having to do with his religious beliefs until I read the article that was here. But yeah go ahead. You win. I'm not sure the guy really believes all of the ID stuff but sure if you want to make it about something you can understand than go for it. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:30, 10 June 2008
Global warming
Your statement about "slowing radiational cooling" just doesn't fit the physics. Most of all it implies that Earth still cools, just at a "slower" rate. In contrast Earth isn't cooling, but is in a (quasi) equilibrium between absorbed and emitted radiation. I'd be glad to discuss the physics with you further, but the bit about "slowing radiational cooling" needs to go. Raymond Arritt 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- What you said doesn't make a bit of sense. If you want to revert this then discuss it on the talk page more. Mathchem271828 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's move it to the Global Warming talk page where others can join in. Raymond Arritt 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Concerning citation
Yes, as long as everything is cited correctly that's fine. JoshuaZ 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)