Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 9 February 2010

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

Happy New Year

Hadn't seen you in a long time, didn't know you were back editing. It's great to see you back. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

John Carter

When asking for help - it is always a good idea to check contribs for recent eds - he hasnt edited since december... SatuSuro 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that - there are some edits today but not much talking SatuSuro 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) bah - sorry received messages not his edit - he is still not back yet SatuSuro 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked and noticed that, so I asked a few others for help as well.

Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

Hello. I closed this discussion. PUF is plainly the wrong venue: the question you raised needs to be discussed at FFD. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Link

Wonder if you saw encyclopediadramatica. com /Science_Apologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.158.85 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusing. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are embarrassed by what you say

There should be no objection to a person speaking the truth on their own page, but this drama is too time consuming. SA, if any editor is going to say things they don't want others to know about, then perhaps it would be best not to speak. Take responsibility for your actions! Tom Butler (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll read this, but you should know that your actions were in contravention of WP:ATTACK. The fourth paragraph, in particular. In any case, I appreciate that you blanked the page! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

quick comment

I'm a strong believer that a series of more subtle actions gets a job done a lot faster than an attempted revolution. Nefariousski (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't think that I'm proposing a revolution, exactly. Nothing I've stated is all that radical, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If only...

... all fringe theorists were so honest about the place of their views in their field. Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I kinda egged on codex Til on the Fringe theory notice board regarding you and Hans... :) Auntie E. (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

you know, Til has the kind of reputation which will precede you regardless of where you go. Even to Africa :) --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Substances used in homeopathic preparations

I recall some disputes on content such as Cayenne_pepper#Other_Uses. Do you know where the discussions are, or what the consensus was in handling such information? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, but could still use the info on past discussions and consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. The majority of the dispute is found in the archives at Talk:Atropa belladonna. The basic consensus is that unless third-party reliable sources indicate that a prominent use/association with the plant is the homeopathic preparation, mention of it should be excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis FAQ

If you're interested in helping me with the FAQ for this article I'm working off of the following test page Nefariousski (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some edits there. In general, I think it's not a good idea to include references in FAQ pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unified login

"I am ScienceApologistWB on Wikibooks and request the account there to be renamed to this account." ScienceApologist (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Star

Hi, No worries. For what it is worth, I think you are one of the few people around those pages that is not a game player and you just want to preserve scientific integrity based on your own perspective. Now, I do may agree with some or many of your views, but game playing does not seem to be your game. So no worries. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Damadian not oppose evolution?

(From Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming) Putting the obvious snarkiness aside, I think you miss the point. Will Happer is unequipped to oppose global warming from a scientific perspective. Including him on this list is akin to including Raymond Vahan Damadian on a list of scientists who oppose evolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bit mystified - Damadian seems to be a young earth creationist. Does he not oppose evolution?

I'm querying it because I see William Happer's opposition to the theory of anthropogenic Global Warming as notable even if he is a bumbling old idiot "an old man who never really got comfortable with computer modeling and distrusts global warming out of a combination of paranoia and political predisposition". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what the point of the article is. If the point of the article is to show all the scientists who oppose global warming because of their professional evaluation of the science, then Will Happer certainly doesn't belong just as Damadian doesn't belong in a list that purports to do the same for evolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Professional Evaluation" doesn't come into it, the only thing to avoid if you seek to influence the debate (and the spending of the money) is not to look like a kook. I suspect Will Happer would qualify as "professional" in his judgement on the subject anyway, his subject is/was the interaction between gases and radiation. He claims to have had (or at least influenced) a budget of $3 billion, someone must have respected even his "unprofessional evaluation". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really his judgment that matters, it's what reliable third-party sources say that matters. It hardly matters that Happer was a political appointee from Bush I's administration in charge of the DOE's research budget. He simply opposes climate change because he does not trust any model which purports to explain terrestrial environmental factors. Likewise, Damadian promotes the idea that his work in the area of medicine qualifies him as a professional who can critique evolution. No one else agrees. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to climate change are particularly sensitive at the moment

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that you already noticed, but congratulations on being the lucky 101 editor to be formally notified. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For inserting your colon where it was needed. Verbal chat 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)