Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 20 May 2007

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

Encouragement

Keep up the good work. I appreciate your stand on the anthroposophy article. Its a psuedoscientific mess. (RookZERO 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions regarding space/time in such detail. Tom Cod 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going to bat for science

Thank you for your untiring vigilance against the creep of pseudoscientific disinformation on Misplaced Pages. If I tried to do what you do, I think I would go crazy.  :-) HEL 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a "voice" of reason (pun intended) in Electronic voice phenomenon

I second the notion: thank you for your untiring vigilance against the creep of pseudoscientific disinformation on Misplaced Pages. But there is such a thing as going too far. Perhaps in the case of the illustration for the EVP article you might suggest an alternative image that is both useful and appropriate. -- LuckyLouie 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppets

I agree that the edits of these two editors are very suspicious, both in terms of the edits themselves and the months in which they are active. There seems to be a very strong indication that either they are both editing or neither. However, I think there was a Check User done a few months ago, and they don't have the same IP address. Of course, there are ways around that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On Feb 14, 2007, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gravitor indicates that there is no IP or geographic connection. Therefore, I think the meatpuppet angle should be pursued. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Carfiend and Gravitor / Gravitor and Carfiend

Thanks for the tip about yet another, probably fruitless, attempt to get an admin to do something about those two, who are otherwise known as "the gift that keeps on giving". Wahkeenah 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed by now, the admin did an excellent job of connecting the dots, even to a user I had apparently chosen to forget (For Great Justice) and indefinitely suspended it/them. Wahkeenah 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your comments. And I'm all for second and third chances. I've been slapped a time or two myself, justifiably. But if one doesn't learn from his mistakes, there's only so much slack you can cut them, and then some action is required. Peace be with us. :) Wahkeenah 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The one lurking user that was overlooked is another redlink called Axlalta. I think he's less of a threat, and may not be such a one-note. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Langan

Despite what misgivings you might have of me, I consider myself a rational naturalist (ask MindBender and BillC if you have doubts). I don't buy Langan's philosophy, but I understand it, and while it's interesting, it's not really falsifiable in the traditional sense. However, the CMTU section is clearly couched in terms of "he says" and "he believes", etc, and is clearly attributed to his own writings. Therefore, I don't understand your personal opposition to it. Oh, I've read what you've written as your rationale, but it doesn't make sense to me at all. If there is a larger angle that I am missing, please email me; you will have my complete confidence and discretion. --Otheus 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page --Otheus 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with discussing issues with you. There is a real issue I have with reporting on ideas in Misplaced Pages that have received no critical review. WP:FRINGE and WP:SCIENCE are being developed to avoid this problem. This is why I don't think that an exposition of Langan's ideas should be included: they are inherently un-encyclopedic. I am a deletionist, so I think that secondary sources are of the utmost importance. --ScienceApologist 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I cannot agree with your overall approach to building an encyclopaedia. I will think about what common ground we might reach, for the future. --Otheus 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist a number of articles you have edited since November. I am telling you this because I am not wikistalking, but because our interests on these topics greatly lap and I'm willing to learn from the examples you have set forth in these articles. Since you and I do have different perspectives on Misplaced Pages, we will no doubt clash on ideas; however, arguing with you is certainly not my goal. Articles added: Spirituality, Quackwatch, Gordon Pask, William G. Tift, Antrhoposophy, Superseded scientific theories, Cold fusion, Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, Dark matter, Galaxy rotation curve, Plasma cosmology, Tired light, Immanuel Velikovsky, Robert Sungenis, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Scientific consensus, Telepathy, Biblical literalism, Psionics, Psychic detective, Redshift. Note, I absolutely steer away from evolution/creation controversy for multiple, personal reasons. Also, I took the "materialist" test you took. See my home page.--Otheus 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A rather confusing warning

Look closer, it was your edit, and you have all now violated the 3rr rule many times over. CINEGroup 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd judge the warnings given by CINEGroup to be wrong and maybe even abusive. Please bring your evidence. --Pjacobi 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I only count three edits (not counting consecutive ones, which count as one edit) in the last 24 hours (actually only two, the third is a couple minutes outside 24), so there's no way he can be over 3RR. If you really think he is, you can report him at WP:AN3RR and it will be rejected by the admins there. --Minderbinder 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Today IS still April 18th 2007 is it not? Well according to Misplaced Pages, you just edited that within the last 20 minutes, and you performed 3 edits to the page within 5 minutes at that. CINEGroup 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I see, that you are totally clueless. Please start by learning what "revert" means in 3RR. It is just impossible to violate 3RR by 3 adjacent edits only. --Pjacobi 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know what to say. Are you really that unaware of Misplaced Pages policies? WP:3RR applies to reverts, not to edits. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the two warnings as they were inappropriately placed. Cheers. Dina 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported the article nevertheless at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, mostly out of fear what User:Liam Patrick is aiming at. I'm aware that some of us think, that WP:BLP is used to portrait some not so pleasant people more positive than they are, but IMHO that has to some extent be accepted. --Pjacobi 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Davcal deliberately antagonistic

Hi ScienceApologist. I was just wondering what your take on Davcal is.

I've tried to initiate a number of conversations with him about some of his (imho) extreme edits and PoV on his talk page but he erases them and uses foul language to describe them in his edit comments. In the article on EVP he always seems to be pushing the same diatribe and PoV as well as reverting constantly points which seem to be quite important (such as this one about voices).

As you have been around in Misplaced Pages longer trhan I have, is this just a case of persevering or is there some way of stopping him being deliberately antagonistic or ignorant? Candy 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Candy 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreadlocke

I believe you should include User:Dreadlocke into your arbitration and evidence. His edits are very similar to those of the other people involved in the Arb-com and I would hate to see his long history of POV and quarrelsome editing go unnoticed due to his not having edited for a few weeks.Wikidudeman 08:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I award a Barnstar to you.

		The Original Barnstar
		I am awarding you this barn star for your work in helping to improve the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Wikidudeman 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this edit

This is what you did? You just made a smear edit summary and false statement. The person there is a former NASA speech-recognition consultant and "Fortana" is a distinguished professor, if you think they are unreliable that's your POV, but their academic background informations should not be removed. Also a diatribe-like edit summary is so unnecessary. Wooyi 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I've replied you on the ArbCom workshop. Wooyi 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain another edit made by you

This, you have used egregiously un-encyclopedic language to describe a person (would you see Britannica say someone "fancies himself as ...", you probably should use "claim to be ..."), can you provide any justification for it? Wooyi 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no problem with that. What is wrong with saying someone "fancies" himself as something? Though you could always change the wording to "Purports to be" or "claims to be" and I doubt Scienceapologist would have objected.Wikidudeman 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he does fancy himself as a microelectronics expert doesn't he? I was simply trying to attribute the claim to who made it. What's wrong with that? --ScienceApologist 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have credentials in microelectronics, then you are an expert, if not, then you are not worth mentioning. Your edit simply portray a person to be a lunatic daydreaming or something like that. Although I'm a little reluctant to make random guesses here, I do guess he is an expert in microelectronics (frankly, anyone with a degree in that field and has experience in some highly regarded institutes can all be said to be "experts"). Also, the word "fancies to be..." is a little un-encyclopedic and smack of personal attack. Anyways, I think you made that edit without doing any research about that guy, am I right? Wooyi 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What credentials does MacRae have, exactly? And, no, I've done more research on MacRae than I ever had wanted to. What I found was that the guy has only his say-so and the say-so of his friends and fellow paranormal advocates backing up his claims of credentials. I get the impression that it is probably you who has not done their research (WP:RTFA, for example). Am I right? --ScienceApologist 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry for overlooking that. And I apologize for previous strong-language comments against you. I have tried the best not to take it personally, as in the workshop I have proposed proposals regarding to the behavior of other editors as well. I know you might mean well, and many of your contributions are generally good ones. The things is that your actions really made people more angry rather than solving the problem. I have proposed to caution you and others and the only purpose for that is to make you all edit more civilly. A caution wouldn't hurt anyone, would it? We are editing an enclyclopedia, and on paranormal-related topics there are many disagreements, sometimes both sides can get emotional. However, what we need to solve a controversy is collaboration, not confrontation. I've generally edited in the area of politics and law, and disagreement over there has been even stronger, but what I've seen there mostly is compromise and cooperation. I don't think paranormal-related articles should be a battleground. Wooyi 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue that a lot of law and politics editors do not understand and that is that ideas that are subject to science are based on a strict standard methodology including scrupulous observations and collaboration that just cannot happen in law and politics due to the rhetorical nature of the disciplines. While it is easily possible to be plainly correct or incorrect in science, law and politics are only based on arguments and language-based interpretations. What people who avoid science and mathematics fail to understand is the logical and foundational basis of mathematics and science monopolize phenomenology. A lawyer or a politician may find it uncomfortable that scientists reject a flat earth when there are dissenting opinions, but this is an issue already settled by science, just as the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal is already settled by science. Compromise is possible only when editors realize that when they are dealing with observational phenomenon, they are stepping into the purview of science. There is not and indeed cannot be a plurality of opinions on the matter, and no amount of collaboration will make the paranormal phenomena you choose to believe in based on repeatable observations. What I state may appear harsh, but this is the world in which we live and we are charged as editors of this encyclopedia to describe this world to the best of our abilities: not to sugar-coat it for the benefit of those who would wish it to be otherwise. I am as civil as I possibly can be. --ScienceApologist 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

check your password

You might want to change your password. You user name appears to have been used in reverse POV pushing - deleting basic facts separating claimed paranormal phenomona and ordinary everyday phenomona and things that show that official bodies aren't actively engaged in researching the paranormal.

perfectblue 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Presuming that I'm talking to the real SA, some of your edits are could be classified as POV pushing in favor of the paranormal.

perfectblue 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal RfA

Hi. With regards to this edit, I may have misconstrued what you are saying, or you've not worded it as you intended. My synopsis of that edit is "For a resource that reports knowledge, it is unacceptable to refuse to accommodate linguistic misconceptions." Was this what you meant to say, or have I misinterpreted you? Regards, — BillC 13:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang FAR

Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

A quick warning notice that pushing a project approved infobox designed to be put at the top of a page down to the bottom of a page is a disruptive edit that is covered under POINT and Vandalism, and is therefor outside of the boundaries of the #3RR rule.

perfectblue 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Project approved"? Since when do projects trump article consensus? --Minderbinder 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a full width infobox, it should only be 280px wide. You're browser is obviously not handling the code. I suspect that you're using IE and that it is not wordwrapping and that it's pushing the width of the infobox out to the maximum length of the sentence in the picture's caption.

perfectblue 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the infobox, I don't know exactly which browser you are using but you should see the difference. As I said, I suspect that your browser wasn't word wrapping the text and was instead overriding the maximum width setting coded in for the columns used in the infobox, making it appear to be full width on your screen. Have you considered upgrading your browser or trying a different one?

Hence, while you saw a wide infobox, other people saw a narrow one

perfectblue 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Endophysics

Any idea of what is this about? Why do you say it's pseudoscience? Tizio 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed both categories, pseudo or proto. If you want to add either of them back, write about it in the article first then add category. A category without any mention in the article is inappropriate. Wooyi 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about categories. The problem here is that we have been having an article with the {{expert}} tag for quite a long time, and no expert has shown up so far. Since SA was the first person I saw making a content change to the article (changing a category), I'm asking whether (s)he has some kind of expertise on the subject. The categories are really not the problem here. Tizio 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi - as the nominator of the original article for an Afd I thought you might like to know I have just AfD'ed its brother/son, Electric Enceladus, which, appallingly for an encyclopaedia, has managed to survive here for 5 months. Crackpot pseudo-science at its very worst - not just because it is junk, plenty of that kicks about, but because they are trying to spam it everywhere. SFC9394 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang

SA, I appreciate your defense of (apology for?) real science in recent talk page discussions. At times I was quite discouraged that that there wasn't more of an outcry against stubbornness, shoddy thinking, slipshod arguments, and chest-thumping. I spend a lot of effort attempting to make a reasonable case to what seemed to be an unreasonable audience. Cruising around the wiki pages it looked like I was mostly advised to try and compromise. I'm still annoyed at how one stubborn person can hold up progress on an article that's actually been moving in a great direction. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

Also, kudos for never, in any of the posts of yours that I've ever come across, claiming to be an expert in anything. Despite this, methinks you more about what you're talking about than you let on.

Lastly, looking over the posts from this debacle, I also appreciate your ability to keep cool, something I'm going to have to keep working on. Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. Cheers, Wesino | t | 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

4th revert and Non-Cooperation : paraphysics

I will be notifying someone about this. J. D. Redding

Be my guest. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments

Do not remove my comments in talk pages. J. D. Redding 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

HFGWs

I've been noticing a bunch of somewhat suspicious edits related to High-Frequency Gravitational Waves by csblack. I think the page on HFGWs is nonsense (talks about using them for nuclear fusion, surveillance, and spacecraft propulsion), and the week-old user has only edited the HFGW page and added a series of "see alsos" to tons of other (completely unrelated) pages, such as "big bang." Any advice on the wiki protocol for dealing with something that seems like pseudoscience? wesino //t// 19:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, POV fork does sound right. BTW, I think the Wiki link for that is WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK (The latter redirects to something about mirror Wiki sites) wesino //t// 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Going around trying to repair the "see also"s, it was nice to see how many other editors had caught on to nonsense and deleted them already... Cheers, wesino //t// 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have (again) redirected HFGWs to gravitational waves. I agree completely with the spirit of your actions, but I think the reasons should generally be known to other editors. I've discussed a few of the problems on Talk:High-Frequency Gravitational Waves. The most uncontroversial problem is that the entire history section is plagiarized, almost verbatim, from another source. Still, I would like it if we could make a completely solid case against this article, with a majority of editors agreeing with it before proceeding. Is this being discussed elsewhere? Silly rabbit 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to your reply.) Yes, I agree with your action. I just hope it sticks, because otherwise nothing is going to stop an editor — likely well-meaning, but ignorant — from reviving the article at some point in the near future. Silly rabbit 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus version"

I am more than a little bothered by your calling the redirect of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves a "consensus version". If there was a growing consensus, it was for an AfD, not a redirect. Be bold if you like, but please do not call it a "consensus" action. This got reverted once by another editor, and if it gets reverted again I will not support you on this, but instead will also work to keep the article up as-is pending an AfD.

Do be aware that I am giving serious thought to being to one who reverts this last redirect, if only because the claim of "consensus" is fradulent. The article being a piece of junk is the only thing stopping me from doing so. --EMS | Talk 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello SA, sorry if I have been too rude on the arbitration. From some thread in project-space, forgot where, you mentioned "your student...", so are you a professor? If it's true then I shouldn't be that disrespectful since I'm only a student. Anyways, it's better to clarify here that myself is kinda existentialist, believing in the uniqueness of individual experience and free choice, that's probably why I seems to be a gadfly on the ArbCom page, not accepting rationalism or other stuff. But I realize that personal philosophy shouldn't affect editing. So I have a question about EVP, that according to the article (frankly, I knew nothing about it before seeing the article), EVP uses electronic devices to record paranormal sounds. Which element in its process violate scientific method? From what I learned in high school, scientific method is "purpose, hypothesis, observation, data, and conclusion", so I'm kinda confused. Thanks! Wooyi 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have verified ScienceApologist's credentials.Proabivouac 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into details since this isn't really the place to get into a long discussion, but one might refer to Occam's razor in this discussion. Roughly, Occam's razor states that one ought not invoke unnecessary entities. In the EVP case, say you have two explanations for the voice-like sounds that you hear. One is some paranormal phenomenon, while the other is merely interference. Now, if you have evidence to point to one or the other, show the evidence and explain your conclusion. However, if you have to essentially pick randomly between the two because there is no evidence that would help you determine if you're hearing true extra-physical phenomena or just getting interference, following Occam's razor would suggest that you chalk things up to interference since you don't have to invent some new physics or ghosts/etc. that have not been confirmed by others. Occam's razor is not a scientific tenet, but it is considered useful. As always, you can also refer to verifiability and falsifiability as tenets of useful investigation. Antelan 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A clarification for Wooyi: EVP uses electronic devices to attempt to record paranormal sounds. EVP also violates a basic ground rule of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. - LuckyLouie 05:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Proabivouac, you forgot to mention that you were able to verify that ScienceApologist is NOT a professor, although your response above seems to give the opposite impression. And yet you said it was a mistake for me to challenge said credentials.
• I wonder what lesson a student will learn from someone who says they are a professor, and isn't, and from someone who deliberately perpetuates the "exaggeration". --Iantresman 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman, you are making something out of nothing. "Professor" is, in standard American usage, not only a formal academic rank, but also a job description, see definition 2b: Now consider the question he was posed above: "From some thread in project-space, forgot where, you mentioned "your student...", so are you a professor?" The question is clearly premised upon the definition of professor as instructor (indeed, one with the formal title Professor may not even have any students,) and I responded accordingly.Proabivouac 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)