| Revision as of 23:10, 1 February 2010 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Does Damadian not oppose evolution?← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 3 February 2010 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 3.Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.</big> | ::Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.</big> | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I encourage you to revisit the Misc page. ] (]) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Greetings == | |||
| Happy New Year, ScienceApologist! I enjoyed editing the Optics article with you earlier. If at times situations arise where you think my advice or assistance could be useful, feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email (although I'm editing less often these days so I might not respond swiftly). All the best, <span style="color:Blue; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am also available if you need help. ] (]) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year == | == Happy New Year == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 31: | ||
| == Misplaced Pages Day NYC == | == Misplaced Pages Day NYC == | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| '''''You are invited''''' to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at ''']''' on Sunday January 24, 2010 at ]; ''''''. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)</small> | '''''You are invited''''' to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at ''']''' on Sunday January 24, 2010 at ]; ''''''. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
| Line 46: | Line 37: | ||
| == Link == | == Link == | ||
| Wonder if you saw encyclopediadramatica. com /Science_Apologist <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | Wonder if you saw encyclopediadramatica. com /Science_Apologist <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :Amusing. ] (]) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | :Amusing. ] (]) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Sorry you are embarrassed by what you say== | == 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! ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | 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! ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::I doubt that you'll read this, but you should know that your actions were in contravention of ]. The fourth paragraph, in particular. In any case, I appreciate that you blanked the page! ] (]) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ::I doubt that you'll read this, but you should know that your actions were in contravention of ]. The fourth paragraph, in particular. In any case, I appreciate that you blanked the page! ] (]) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 68: | Line 61: | ||
| you know, Til has the kind of reputation which will precede you regardless of where you go. Even to Africa :) --] <small>]</small> 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | you know, Til has the kind of reputation which will precede you regardless of where you go. Even to Africa :) --] <small>]</small> 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Substances used in homeopathic preparations== | == Substances used in homeopathic preparations == | ||
| I recall some disputes on content such as ]. Do you know where the discussions are, or what the consensus was in handling such information? --] (]) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | I recall some disputes on content such as ]. Do you know where the discussions are, or what the consensus was in handling such information? --] (]) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I went ahead and removed it, but could still use the info on past discussions and consensus. --] (]) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | :I went ahead and removed it, but could still use the info on past discussions and consensus. --] (]) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 84: | Line 78: | ||
| "I am ScienceApologistWB on Wikibooks and request the account there to be renamed to this account." ] (]) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | "I am ScienceApologistWB on Wikibooks and request the account there to be renamed to this account." ] (]) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Toronto Star== | == 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. ] (]) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | 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. ] (]) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 3 February 2010
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- "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)
- 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)