Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 27 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.

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)

Cosmogony

Hey ScienceApologist, if you have time can you have a look at the Cosmogony article? I really don't know much about the topic, but I was left wondering if the current introduction there could be improved. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have written part of that introduction. It is a very weird subject, cosmogony. I'm not exactly sure what the best way to approach it is. Likely the philosophical idealizations of cosmogony are the most useful, but I am not at all familiar with the literature. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Philosophy can help. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Behe BLP issues

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.

The issues with this page sources are discussed here and here. There is an open BLP notice here. Note that per WP:BLP the onus for providing edivence of source reliability lies with the editor re-inserting deleted content. JPatterson (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about dropping the template on you. I meant no disrespect. I was unaware that it is considered bad form. JPatterson (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the stupid "bad form dropping a template on an established user" bit needs to be re-evaluated by whomever is telling you it is bad form. Sure WP:DTTR is a useful essay, but with those of us operating on Misplaced Pages repeating ourselves over and over again about issues, we've got this useful set of ready-to-fill-out templates at our disposal. I never take offense at a template being placed on my talkpage, and instead take it as an indication that someone is trying to communicate something formally to me. Kinda like when someone makes a "formal complaint" or a "written notice/memo". We need more formality at Misplaced Pages and more professionalism and templates are an attempt to move in that direction, and I like them for it. Sure, they could be rewritten to be better, but that's a WP:SOFIXIT matter. So, in short, if you want to draft a Misplaced Pages:Don't get so upset when you are a regular who is templated, I'll be the first on board. Of course, that idea is present in all the essays that mention not templating the regulars, so maybe it's not needed. In any case, this is a long-winded way of saying, don't sweat it. I actually appreciate being templated and I hope you don't mind if you are templated in the future! ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

needs to be re-evaluated by whomever is telling you it is bad form - heh, that was my bad, sorry. Personally I think that it is great that other people have already worked out these useful templates including nice friendly phrasing and all the relevant links, but I can never be bothered to keep track of who dislikes them. They can be misused, but so can lasers and everybody agrees that those are great. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that if someone is abusing templates there are likely a whole host of other things they are doing wrong. Lacking any sort of formal complaint system that one can utilize at the userpage level, templates are all we've got. Here's my dictum: If someone templates you, assume that they are upset about what you did and wish you would have done something differently. That's the best thing you can learn from templates. I also find it amusing that "template" is now a verb. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF

Please refactor these remarks ( ) to comport with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. JPatterson (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough! Please explain how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. After that, I will gladly refactor. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me like gaming." is an accusation of bad faith. Likewise "If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards", which is also rude and uncivil. JPatterson (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why? I really would like to know because I did not write those statements in bad faith or to be rude or uncivil so I would like to understand what about the statements you perceive to be rude and uncivil. If you would like to read my understanding of what I was intending when I wrote those statements, I will gladly provide that, but I'm not sure exactly what about them you find objectionable only that you find them objectionable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to play word games. I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort in a good faith attempt at improving an article with serious BLP concerns. I am working constructively with other editors to resolve those problems. If you see such efforts as gaming the system and are unable to see why expressing that view to the community at large is both uncivil and in violation of WP:AGF then it is time to try and get the community to show you the error in your reasoning. One lat time, please refactor your remarks. JPatterson (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been around the block in these Misplaced Pages wars over civility, personal attacks, and bad faith. What I have learned from these disputes is that everyone has a different definition for what they find offensive and what they find tolerable. The only way to consistently deal with the vast community of Wikipedians is to openly dialog. The issue is that I have been hounded by other Wikipedians in the past who were constantly telling me I was being rude, uncivil, and personally attacking them without explaining why they found my comments to be that way. I am willing to refactor if someone explains why the comment is uncivil, but if no explanation is given then I don't know how to change the wording while keeping the intended meaning so they aren't offended and we end up playing circle games. There is a reason I am asking you to be explicit about what you find uncivil, rude, and lacking good faith (though this might be of interest as well). I genuinely do not know why you felt that way and I cannot improve in my interactions with you if I'm not made aware of this (see step 2 at the top of this page).

To be clear, I did not intend either of the offending comments to be rude or uncivil, or to have the assumption of bad faith. What I wanted to communicate were disputes I was having with your rhetorical style and what I perceived to be a lack of justification for edits you made. To explain: I cannot understand why someone would remove statements from an article that are true for reasons other than WP:POINT. I'm willing to read an alternative explanation as to why you did this, or why it is offensive to state that this is my opinion of a rationale for such actions. I suppose the latter would be better since you seem to want me to rewrite my opinion. Secondly, I truly missed what the point of your engagement with the article in question is if you don't want to be involved in discussions as to how to write the article. It was and is a genuine question I don't know the answer to. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to communicate. Maybe I missed some meaning in your text. But what I wrote was simply a question in direct response to a statement you wrote.

I'm willing to go further in dispute resolution if you would prefer. You're clearly upset, but I'm not understanding what you're upset about. Perhaps a third opinion would help me understand? We are clearly operating under different ideas of how Misplaced Pages discussions should best function, and there's something we're not understanding about each other's tactics, techniques, or rules of engagement. I'm always willing to learn how to better navigate in these ways, but I cannot learn if you refuse to tell me what you find problematic about my approach.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(coming from WQA). Let me offer a couple suggestions. First edit, replace reference to "gaming" with inappropriate, inconsistent with WP editing policy, or the like. Second edit ...I think JPatterson needs to be clearer -- obviously he is interested in how the article is written with respect to sources, if not the actual prose of the article? Gerardw (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the first edit, do you recommend this because reference to WP:GAME is considered a bad-faith statement? If so, why? After all, we have WP:AAGF. I'm just trying to understand. In regards to the second edit, is there anything actionable then? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Because citing WP:GAME is projecting motivation onto the contributor, which in turn is commenting on the contributor, not the content. Second item I'm fine with myself but JPatterson could possibly have a suggestion. Gerardw (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank, Gerardw. I understand. Never thought of it that way! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The second (actually the forth) edit by itself would not have bothered me. In the context of the first, it re-emphasized his characterization of my motives for editing. I would suggest he strike the comment. JPatterson (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've struck it and changed it with a synonym that was my intent. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your motivations. I only wanted to explain what it looked like to me. Apologies if I offended. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerations here. I appreciate them very much. No hard feelings - lets get back to work! JPatterson (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Above you wrote: "To explain: I cannot understand why someone would remove statements from an article that are true for reasons other than WP:POINT." I find great value in the "verifiability not truth" standard. I find that forcing people to focus on what the RS is saying brings clarity and NPOV to an article. So to answer your question, as I read WP:BLP there is no exception for Truth. Unless it is sourced it should be removed, even if true. Sure I know we don't have to source the earth is round, but I don't think flat earthers have had their theories published in peer reviewed journals or given invited papers at the American Molecular Biology Society, a fact I found today while trying to find an acceptable source to support the unsourced statement whose removal you object to. Whether you believe it or not, I am trying to improve wikipedia. I think the Behe article is horribly unencyclopedic which I think discredits the project. In this partisan era, readers are expert at detecting bias and quickly discount information they perceive as one sided. There's plenty of ways to get the WP:FRINGE message across without beating the reader over the head at every turn. JPatterson (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd buy this if you hadn't unilaterally removed everything even remotely evaluative with minimal explanation. Note that your talkpage exposition came after you culled the article. WP:V is fine and good, but I understood that you believed that the statements weren't only true, but that they were verifiable as well. Imagine my shock when you went on to say that you weren't interested in actually writing or researching. I just am not of the opinion that Misplaced Pages needs angels of death. Well, anyway, water under the bridge at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the record will show :>) that I listed the BLP issues on the TP for the better part of a day before I eliminated the material. I received no response so WP:B and all that. I frankly was shocked at the response given that no one had bothered to reply to the issues I had raised. I expected a few blantant POV pushers to object but couldn't imaging that a consensus would form to allow unsourced OR/SYN negative material to stay on a BLP, especially in light of the emphasis that is being given right now to cleaning these up. It was in light of the response, accusations of white washing etc. that I expanded my rationale the list (BLP Redeux), which is probably what I should have done in the first place. In any case, it appears to be working itself out. JPatterson (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to quit the back-and-forth, but your first post to the talkpage was not helpful at all and instead came across as pedantic and meanspirited. I'm all in favor of the WP:BRD model, but you have to accept a R after a B for it to work. I'm still not convinced that a lot of your criticism made sense. Some of your points could be dealt with by a careful rewording. But you instead went through and removed text. That others objected to this removal is simply par for the course. The onus is on you to convince us, not the other way around. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, ජපස. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JPatterson (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I gathered as much from the intervention of the third opinion (which was very helpful). In the future, it helps when you place these notices to reference the precise thread. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Architect

In reference to the links provided at WQA (article talk page is already archived, so I'm not commenting there.) The code architectureis a "you say tomato I say tomahto" kind of thing. Obviously code has some sort of structure, whether is has a formally designed architecture or not. Whether it one classifies that as architecture or not is a matter of semantics, not worth quibbling over. Kind of like all code is threaded, but we never really talked about when all code was single-threaded. May you guys could just agree to disagree? Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As a software architect I would of course have to disagree. Software architecture is defined as a specification in any number of standard references. But in any case, I could not care less about SA's being misinformed about an arcane definition. I do not think editors should be allowed to impugn another editors professional capability under any circumstances.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

It's a little startling to have someone say with much emphasis that a certain code has no architecture. Apparently, to my confusion, the same person who said this now says that he fancies himself a software architect. I must plead ignorance to how this differs from, say, a computer programmer, but I'm not interested in the personal characteristics of this other. All I can say is, to me, a "specification" of form is something that can happen regardless of the beauty (or lack thereof) of the set-up. Architectural theory, in fact, claims that all forms have architecture -- even those not specifically designed! The sort of high-handed comment that was made about a rough-cut scientific code was so startling to me that I thought the other person I was talking to was into a sort of rough-and-tumble discourse. I may have erred in my judgment, but I'm not sure after all this back-and-forth what exactly this other disputant wants in order to resolve the dispute. For my part, I'd be happy if he disengaged from the rhetoric as it only serves to stir the pot and I'm not one to let misconceptions that I see go unanswered. Of course, he may not believe them to be misconceptions, but it's pretty easy to see when commentary strays from the goal of WP:ENC. Or is it? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this were a normal editing environment I'd be more than happy with the rough and tumble. But its not a normal in AWG land. The probation has created a very asymmetrical environment where rough and tumble gets (some of us) article banned. I've decided the best way forward is hyper-civility. I don't expect that from others but you have to draw the line at some point. This incident is over as far as I'm concerned. I look forward to more constructive engagement with you in the future. Cheers. JPatterson (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang

Thank you for your note with regard to the Big Bang. Would you kindly assist me with the necessary wording so that I may maintain a neutral point of view. regards Androstachys (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find the following of interest at http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

• Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe. To summarise, a cause might be unknowable, but still exist. cheers Androstachys (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Ross, as a creationist, is not a Reliable source for commentary on the Big Bang. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest - does that disqualify him? You're on a slippery slope if the only sources you will countenance are those who agree with you...... Incidentally, are we talking NPOV or reliable sources?Androstachys (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemaître's use of general relativity is something we discuss in the article. His identity as a Roman Catholic priest is a curiosity. His association of the Big Bang with the Genesis narrative as a theological truth is something we rightly exclude from the article. Similarly, when Hugh Ross speaks as a creationist about primal causes (which is code for God) then we exclude that from the scientific explication of the Big Bang. The true slippery slope is when we start quoting people's private beliefs as fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think I've yet been guilty of 'quoting private beliefs as fact'. The article on the other hand doesn't seem to bother much with clearly differentiating between fact and speculation - the sentence "In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the Universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the Universe into a single point." This was clearly a private belief as the word "suggested" indicates. What is not clear though, is whether the piece immediately following "at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence" was also his idea, as the reference implies, or whether it was slipped in by some editor. In any event, the logical anomaly introduced by such a view needs to be addressed. Androstachys (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The logical anomaly you are trying to cite is not one that is considered meaningful by any but a few commentators. And all those commentators seem to be Old Earth creationists. We're talking about trying to include an idea that is almost wholly extra-scientific while the page on Big Bang is meant to be about the scientific theory itself and not delve into supposed logical conundrums. Perhaps you'd do better trying to include such discussion at Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You do carry on about religion - something that doesn't interest me in the slightest - while failing to respond to my query about the provenance of "at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence". If the article confined itself to the Big Bang then there would be no problem, but when it starts to speculate about conditions before, then that calls for equal time to be given to dissenting opinions. Causality has never broken down at any level, despite the efforts of some deluded physicists who imply as much by citing the seemingly spontaneous creation and destruction of electrons, positrons and photons or the unpredictability of the breakdown of particular atoms in radioactive material. No matter how much some may try to avoid it, some unknown or even unknowable conditions led to the Big Bang, and if those conditions should be repeated then more Big Bangs would follow. This is not a religious argument, but a purely logical one. Androstachys (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not a religious argument then it should be no problem for you to find a reliable source that makes it which is not explicitly religious. In other words, stop trolling around creationists websites like leaderu.com and find the point made in, say, an academic journal article. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we're in the giving useful advice mode, here are some for you - 1. Answer the questions asked of you 2. Be more even-handed in your demands for sources (the vast majority of factoids and facts in the article are NOT backed up by references). Androstachys (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1.I am under no obligation as a Wikipedian to answer questions posed to me. The only two questions you asked here are rhetorical ones that both propose false dichotomies. 2.If you have some issue with one of the facts or factoids not backed up by references, you can feel free to bring that concern up on the Talk:Big Bang page. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Soft demarcation?

Hi!
Reading your user page with interest, I agree in most things except the section excluding pseudoscience. Isn't it better if we have articles and mentions of pseudoscience and properly explain them being non-scientific? Maybe it requires some little effort to keep those articles well and reliable, but an optimistic reader who believe in such things, and don't find them explained on WP, will be tempted to (re?)create them, rather than being discouraged from such thinking. We shouldn't give undue weight to them, but on the other hand, we should not cease explaining them to be plain wrong and stupid if we get a chance to do so. Or? Rursus dixit. (bork!) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, which pseudoscience do you mention? The obvious answer is, include the most famous pseudoscience that has been mentioned in secondary and tertiary reliable sources. I have no problem with that (thus WP:ONEWAY). But there gets to be a problem when we try to accommodate every weird belief and idea that has ever come down the pipe. Sometimes undue weight means less than a single word. The classic example is that time cube is not mentioned at time. Rightly so. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So Just Write It

I understand your pain. I had a bit of a simmilar problem at Wuxia... so I wrote an article, published it and then let some other editors know I had done so. I showed them how to find the article, they put in the citations and my OR became a WP:RS for the article... Which was awesome regardless of getting paid for writing - which I always like. :D

Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I reach out to you because I encountered your name at User talk:AGK/Archive/37#Mentorship. As you might explect, AGK declined more than one invitation to join a mentorship committee for me, e.g., see here. Perhaps it would have been better and wiser to have presented my invitation to you? I just didn't put two and two together before today. Now I begin to recognize that your perspective is invaluable.

What can I do to persuade you to consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

When I scanned the thread at User talk:ScienceApologist#Please AGF, I was especially encouraged by the tone and clarity of the paragraph which begins "I've been around the block ...." Your words are better than I can write, but I doubt that this moderate, rational strategy would have succeeded in the kinds of confrontations which cause me to stumble. I want to be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain that I'm not. Lessons learned the hard way are not often sugar-coated.

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I have sent you two e-mails. Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Orb (optics)

The appropriate place to have a discussion about this article, is on THIS articles' discussion page, so that people know it's happening, so the people who care about THIS article have a chance to pipe in. That's what the article's discussion page is for. By carrying the discussion to the backscatter page, you have colored the discussion.

Furthermore, this article is not so much about the subject from the angle of optics and physics, but more photography. And the article has bounced around quit a bit from Orbs (photography), Orbs(paranormal) and Orbs(optics). 842U (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While it is regrettable that you did not know about the discussion, the talk page of that article was so moribund that it was hard to know anyone had an interest in it. Regardless, I should have linked to the FTN thread before today. For that I apologize. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for everything. Would you be willing to join Wikiproject physics in the next few days?Likebox (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of Wikiproject Physics, but tend to keep a low profile there unless something egregious happens. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about filling leadership roles in the project. It would be nice if you could join, since it is within your realm of interest.Likebox (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but...

I do not communicate off-wiki with other editors.Fladrif (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)