| Revision as of 20:08, 21 August 2007 editDebeo Morium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users621 edits →Another chance for your two cents.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:24, 2 June 2009 edit undoEncyclopaedia21 (talk | contribs)327 edits →A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies: new section | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| I have restored your indefinite block. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | I have restored your indefinite block. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies == | |||
| Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described ]). If interested, please email me ] (]) 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:24, 2 June 2009
Good night
It's been fun chatting with you, but I'm going to sleep now. I appreciate the fact that you've remained "zen" even while you were greatly out-numbered on your proposal page. I also appreciate the fact that I think you are quite sincere and that your heart is in the right place, even if I disagree with your actual proposal. Ben Hocking 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Accounts
Do these edits belong to you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep up your spirit
Regarding consiracy theories you are right on spot. Perhaps we need to rename all main stream theories as Conspiracy theories instead of changing the title of all current conspiracy theories to get people to understand your point :-) knutars 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Although I understand your perspective, be careful not to tread into WP:POINT. Personally, I agree that if the goal is to de-stigmatize conspiracy theories, then using the term more, rather than less, would be more effective. Eliminating the word "conspiracy" from them, however, just causes one to lose information. Perhaps the troublesome word is "theory" and not "conspiracy", in which case "non-mainstream theories" and "alternative theories" doesn't really help any, does it? The word "conspiracy" in these cases is always quite descriptive, as that is what is being discussed. The only potential POV problem I see is the use of the word "theory", which, as I already mentioned on that talk page, is frequently abused by people throughout Misplaced Pages. (E.g., evolution is just a theory, although you rarely hear people say quantum mechanics or the atomic model is just a theory.) Ben Hocking 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Another chance for your two cents.
Seeing as your the conspiracy theory crusader perhaps youll want to chime in on this little revert war we have going on. The talk page speaks for itself, this is the revert im hoping you will want to see undone. revert me. Debeo Morium 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The word "crusader" is not a good word to use. What do they have against those sources? zen master T 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems you were blocked, but ill answer anyway. Nothing. I am the one who supports the sources, along with afew others. As far as i can tell only one person opposes it (maybe two, but i havent heard tom's view yet). I am the one trying to get it restored (and if need be edited to make better, but certainly not removed) Debeo Morium 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I have restored your indefinite block. Tom Harrison 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)