| Revision as of 16:54, 9 December 2006 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits →Please make sure your personal comments in edit summaries are focused on one person.: ok then← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:30, 10 June 2008 edit undoMathchem271828 (talk | contribs)201 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 7 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I want to make it clear to any one who might browse my talk page that I had nothing to do with the current status of that page. I tried to put it back to where it was about the science and failed because other users wanted to make it about religion and ID, which obviously aren't science. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :From the ]: biography, ''n.'' 2. A written record of the life of an individual. Not the "scientific life", not the "religious" life, not the "insert adjective here" life, but just the life. All of it. Period. ] 10:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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 == | |||
| Your eforts on the Schaefer page missed me as I was busy doing other things and anyway I am on the other side of the world and do things at different times. I was in the Schaefer group in 1990 on sabbatical and collaborated with him for several years after that. I think I have published 9 papers with him. I respect his science greatly and do not agree with him in any respect on religion. Please e-mail me from my user page and let us talk about him off wiki for a while. It is too late at night here now for more. --] 11:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, as long as everything is cited correctly that's fine. ] 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please make sure your personal comments in edit summaries are focused on one person. == | |||
| Your edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=William_A._Dembski&diff=next&oldid=93089195 with an edit summary of "(rv, agenda vandalism by Feloneous Monk)" removed not just stuff by FeloniousMonk but also reverted my conversion of a cite. This implies that I am working in ''concert'' with FeloniousMonk (which I can assure you is never the case). Please don't put personal comments into edit summaries unless you are very certain that all of which you are reverting is just targetted at that one person (and even then that's a dubious thing to say anyway but thats the other persons problem not mine). ] 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Also regarding that edit. While you might maybe have minimally plausible argument for your edit to the Schaefer page, the bottom line is that Demsbki has done nothing in the last 5 years at least other than promote ID and barely has any research to his credit. It would be appreciated if you would in the future not just engage in knee-jerk reactions as such. Furthermore, please try to ] and . Thanks. ] 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
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)