User talk:ජපස

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

1. 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.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings 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.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not 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.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey SA. On this RFC, you've signed on as having certified the basis for this dispute. This implies that you have had the same or a similar dispute as ChrisO. Seeing as how that's being heavily disputed, could I see proof of you tryign and failing to resolve the dispute? The RfC looks like it'll be a fairly heavily trafficked one, I don't want to have to delete it on a technicality. Wizardman 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment Psychophysical parallelism

Hi. I was wondering if you could take a look at the aforementioned article. It is my feeling that this at least falls in to the domain os psychology, but really could be AFDd. That said, I am in a bit of a debate with a user that had a pseudoscience type page deleted and he is attempting (it seems to me) to re create it. I trust your judgement on this. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

science-frontiers

Hi. Could you sum-up your reasons for considering this website to be an unusable source? I'm sure you're right, I'm just curious what specific grounds you object to it on. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. William R. Corliss appears to be a physicist, and his books are catalogued in various bibliographic databases, eg. ADS

In taking a random example here, the reference to the "Novaya Zemlya Effect" is based on an article in Physics Today. Another example here references the page on "New England Seamounts Once Near Surface" which is based on an article by American Scientist.

What's the objection to Science Frontiers, AND, to excluding the references to Physics Today and American Scientist? --Raevaen (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RSN vs. Fringe

Hi. I'm familiar with the fringe guidelines and NB, but when I thought about the core of the matter, it was less about the fringe aspect than it was about the nature of the publication venue. When a piece of fringe nonsense makes it into a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the POV-pushers cite chapter and verse from the WP:RS guidelines to defend their position; "If it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it is a reliable source and cannot be excluded from WP simply because you disagree". Basically, they DENY that their work is "fringe" and refuse to acknowledge that WP's fringe guidelines are applicable. Therefore, since they're intent on exploiting WP:RS to their advantage, the logical place to seek a counteracting principle is via the RS forum. The situation in the Morgellons article is less than ideal, but relatively stable (thanks to sprotection), and there are also SOME mainstream criticisms that can be cited in that case. The other article in question has not gotten out of hand yet, but I'd very much prefer to anticipate and avoid a conflict there, by having an appropriate response formulated in advance, rather than having to ad-lib things and violate WP policy myself. That's why I phrased the question in generalized terms: how do you justify prohibiting a citation when it comes from a reliable source, and has no reliable sources that criticize it? If there was a "DO NOT PROMOTE HEALTH SCARES THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE" policy, that would be wonderful, but we don't have any such policy, so truly wacky health scare rumors like Morgellons can be very hard to quell if no one in the medical mainstream feels compelled to comment on them. Why don't people feel compelled? The response I've gotten (the two times I've been in a position to ask) is "Frankly, anyone stupid enough to believe this nonsense is a lost cause. I have better things to do than worry about some idiotic rumors circulating in Wikipedia." - but that response completely abdicates responsibility, and ignores the fact that Wikipedia is a VECTOR for potentially dangerous memes. If someone wrote in WP that kiwifruit caused colon cancer, citing a peer-reviewed source, and NO ONE REFUTED IT, that could do irreparable damage to the kiwifruit industry. How does one prevent such abuses? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)