| Revision as of 15:05, 15 October 2007 editDavid.Mestel (talk | contribs)Rollbackers5,396 edits Martinphi-ScienceApologist← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 16 October 2007 edit undoPsm (talk | contribs)283 edits →Extraterrestrial hypothesis: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Extraterrestrial hypothesis == | |||
| Howdy. You modified some changes I had made to the intro to ETH. I had posted some commentary on the reasons behind the changes on the talk page; it would have been nice if you had commented there, especially since I left it open for commentary for over a month before I put the change in place ;-). If you disliked the way it's written now, you should see what it said before I changed it. And just removing the citation (which I spent quite some time finding) is not very helpful. Anyway, other than my slightly bruised ego, your point about the citation not mentioning ETH is well taken. Regardless of terminology they distinctly were *not* talking about ETH but about UFOs. I will try to change it to reflect that. What the citation supports is the notion that when scientists review the evidence at hand, they conclude that some UFO reports merit further study, but they don't really comment much on ETH. E.g. the notion that there's even a minority support for ETH in mainstream science is wrong. And leaving the comment "a few scientists ..." is zero info, since you can pretty much find a "a few" scientists supporting any notion. I will post a version of this comment on the ETH talk page; please follow up there if after my next edit you still disagree with the text. --] 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:53, 16 October 2007
 Archives |
Why I returned
For better or worse, Misplaced Pages is now the first stop for students doing research for classes. It is important, therefore, that there be a person willing to ensure that information is accurate and reliable here. I disagree with the so-called "cult of the amateur" embraced by large segments of the community here, but since this is an open format I am pleased to continue to contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience. ScienceApologist 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back! Vsmith 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm here for much the same reason, in math rather than science. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fantastic. This is the best Misplaced Pages related news in quite some time. -- Ec5618 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back from me too William M. Connolley 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, if I can help out in any way, please just drop a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm here for exactly the same reasons as you. Welcome back to the madhouse. The Sanity Cabal has missed you. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is great news. — BillC 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you back
Just wanted to chime in. Don't let the bastards get you down, even though they try hard. Help out at Homeopathy if you want. OrangeMarlin 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back. :-) KillerChihuahua 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that you really want to know but....
You better comment here OrangeMarlin 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you've returned
I don't think we ever ran into each other, but I'm a civil engineer who avoids science-related topics only because of the psuedoscience POV-pushers. You're doing something necessary, please don't let others get you down. east.718 at 22:12, October 2, 2007
Thanks
Thanks for over-extending yourself into places that really didn't concern you, and not being shy about what your agenda is. In a place of neutrality, you really do belong here. You and the rest of the one-dimensional people really know what's best. Just as you always have, as all the pages of history here show. Peace Jiminezwaldorf 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with ScienceApologist, but Misplaced Pages allows anyone to edit any article (WP:OWN), and fringe science and pseudoscience articles are his main interest so they surely concern him. If we can agree on such basic facts, then some year we may agree on neutrality. Art LaPella 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'll address the NPOV tag as soon as I can. Please be patient. Jiminezwaldorf 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice
I never met you, but apon trowling through the ARBCOM, and Comunity ban archives, as I do when I am bored, or not at work, I am glad to see you back here editing after that horrible business with user:iantresman, now blocked thank goodness. It's always a struggle to create something of a credible encyclopedia when there are vandals, pov pushers, spammers, trolls, and other undesirebles here. Zanusi 09:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes nice to have you back; while you were away, some whippersnapper called User:Nondistinguished was trying to impersonate you, but he seemed to have lost most of his votes for deletion and gave up ;-) --feline1 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
EVP
We've been going through an informal mediation concerning the EVP article. The discussions can be found here: Talk:Electronic voice phenomena. We're trying to work on each section at a time and reach a consensus on that. We're at a standstill because the mediator is busy this week however in theory we could do it without him. I think this way is better than simply editing it directly(Until consensus is met) because of potential edit wars. Wikidudeman 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, and welcome back. Since at least one editor has recently been editing the article directly I suppose that means there's no need to wait for consensus or be at a "standstill". It sure could use some attention. For example, regarding the article's introduction, "EVP" can only be stated to have been "observed" in various media if cited by authoritative sources such as IEEE Journals, Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals, International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration, and current academic texts. Otherwise, the observations must be phrased as a claim. - LuckyLouie 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
note on martins page about that. Wikidudeman 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
WELCOME BACK
I just noticed you're editing again. Glad to see you back. Raul654 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll second the sentiment. Though I am myself not a very active Wikipedian of late, I'm glad you are back. This restores me a great deal of hope. --Friendly Neighbour 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Happy to see you contributing again. Tom Harrison 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Have it out'?
I am responding to your threatening post on my Talk page. I am not "Wikistalking" you -- I noticed your canvassing input at a number of "friendly" talk pages, and decided to drop by to see what you were up to this time. And no, I will not respond to "baiting" for your desired effect. Thank you for your visit. --profg 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I sent you an E-mail concerning Martin's arbitration. Please check it. Thanks. Wikidudeman 02:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Me too
I'm glad to see you back. I was afraid that we had lost you (one of our best editors) forever. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
AN/I
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that there is currently and AN/I discussion regarding an issue you may be involved with here. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. – ornis⚙ 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Profg
SA, I just wanted speak to you about your edit here. I agree with your desire to stand against this type of editor, but it's getting frustrating. A bunch of very good anti-POV editors have left the project over the past few weeks and months. I'm running out of energy standing against them. I've taking the policy of matching their bullshit with my own, with the hope that good guys can come in and get it straightened out. Too often, the right wing lies and lies and lies until you think it's the truth. How long did we think there were WMD's in Iraq? Or here at Misplaced Pages, how long did many people believe that Evolution is just a theory? Profg is obviously a POV-warrior of the best type--he's not really good at it. I ignore him, because the more subtle ones are more difficult to fight. I figure he'll be typing here soon, because he's wikistalking a lot of editors. Anyways, I'm glad you're back, but the fight is frustrating. OrangeMarlin 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Models of the universe
Right you are. Why isn't a redirect to cosmology more appropriate? 1of3 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi talk page
I apologize for calling you a vandal, considering that you really believed at the time that the parody template on my talk page was a personal attack, and that I was not a member of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism. ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Extraterrestrial hypothesis
Howdy. You modified some changes I had made to the intro to ETH. I had posted some commentary on the reasons behind the changes on the talk page; it would have been nice if you had commented there, especially since I left it open for commentary for over a month before I put the change in place ;-). If you disliked the way it's written now, you should see what it said before I changed it. And just removing the citation (which I spent quite some time finding) is not very helpful. Anyway, other than my slightly bruised ego, your point about the citation not mentioning ETH is well taken. Regardless of terminology they distinctly were *not* talking about ETH but about UFOs. I will try to change it to reflect that. What the citation supports is the notion that when scientists review the evidence at hand, they conclude that some UFO reports merit further study, but they don't really comment much on ETH. E.g. the notion that there's even a minority support for ETH in mainstream science is wrong. And leaving the comment "a few scientists ..." is zero info, since you can pretty much find a "a few" scientists supporting any notion. I will post a version of this comment on the ETH talk page; please follow up there if after my next edit you still disagree with the text. --Psm 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)