JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims Options

[Cla68]

BTW Abd's allegations of a cabal, rejected by ArbCom, have so far driven away two female contributors, Woonpton and Crohniegal. Not great. But that's what happens when people make things up.

Well, Woonpton told me on her userpage that, "I'm not at all interested in editing noncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia...my interest was in hoping to slow the accelerating handover of the encyclopedia to fringe interests of all kinds." I guess that included ABD.

In my opinion, anyone who edits Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation" are doomed to disappointment and frustration, because the Wikipedia model doesn't support that kind of agenda. You have to be willing, in most cases, to compromise and allow minority viewpoints/POV in if they're supported by reliable sources.

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

Only one editor other than Woonpton, that I've seen, has admitted to trying to protect the science articles from minority or fringe views, and that's Tony Sideaway (there's another recent diff where he also indicates that he's trying to keep out fringe views, but I don't feel like looking for it right now). Actually, I think JzG has said something along those lines also.

[Grep]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited Myron Evans and later voted to delete it as "extremely bad science" (see commentary here), edited Florentin Smarandache 15 times, edited Ruggero Santilli, edit warred with Danko Georgiev MD to remove "contentious detail" about Unruh's interferometer from Bill Unruh, edit warred over Jeremy Dunning-Davies, created Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, ...

Must have been some other member of the team then.

This post has been edited by Grep: Sat 19th September 2009, 6:37am

[Mathsci]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited Myron Evans and later voted to delete it as "extremely bad science" (see commentary here), edited Florentin Smarandache 15 times, edited Ruggero Santilli, edit warred with Danko Georgiev MD to remove "contentious detail" about Unruh's interferometer from Bill Unruh, edit warred over Jeremy Dunning-Davies, created Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, ...

Must have been some other member of the team then.

Many of the articles you're talking about have been deleted. I wonder why? Could it be that they involve (a) pseudoscience (b) self-promotion? Didn't Danko Georgiev MD out me on wikipedia as the chairman of the mathematics dept in UC Berkeley? Was he not indeed stopped from editing WP by his acting Ph.D. supervisor in Japan as a result? Was the deleted article by Georgiev not on his own unrefereed research and a BLP violation of Bill Unruh, the Canadian physicist?

Perhaps that escaped your notice.

As for Francesco Fucilla and his self-promotional films (all 3 deleted fairly recently), as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about. He - and the IP edits you're referring to - have been discussed on various noticeboards.

I'm glad you like the ECE theory article. Which articles have you edited on wikipedia, either recently or back in 2006/2007?

Just as a matter of interest, unless you're an admin on en.wiki, how can you see deleted contributions?

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sat 19th September 2009, 7:51am

[Grep]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited [long and boring list of controversial science articles]

Many of the articles you're talking about have been deleted. I wonder why? [...]

So you have indeed edited controversial science articles, some of which you "fixed", and some where you voted at AFD to "eliminate". Why did you deny that before and why are youbothering to obscure it now?

[Mathsci]

These were pseudoscience articles by a related group of self-promoting non-entities. There's nothing controversial about the articles, because, apart from the RL posturing of the proponents, the "theories" are known to be either trivial or nonsense. Most of the articles have been deleted (quite rightly).

Myron Evans for example uses an incorrect version of the Bianchi identities for a connection to justify his "theory". This uncontroversial fact can hardly have escaped your eagle eye. An eye that can look at deleted edits, normally inaccessible to anybody but an admin on WP. I find it quite creepy that you do that and even more creepy that you don't tell us how.

Anyway what's controversial about the article on ECE theory?

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sun 20th September 2009, 5:04am

[Grep]

So you have indeed been trying to eliminate "misinformation". Why do you deny it? There are some people who might even think that a Good Thing. Cla68's point was that it was "doomed to disappointment and frustration", not actually Wrong.

[Mathsci]

So you have indeed been trying to eliminate "misinformation". Why do you deny it? There are some people who might even think that a Good Thing. Cla68's point was that it was "doomed to disappointment and frustration", not actually Wrong.

What nonsense you write sometimes.

You haven't answered my questions about deleted edits.

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time. It's usually just a question of items on my watchlist.

The bulk (99.9%) of my WP namespace editing is on a completely different set of articles and is quite time-consuming, be it on non-commutative harmonic analysis, Handel organ concertos or Mantegna's Triumphs. The main problem is finding sources, usually not available on the web.

No need for creepy distortions.

[Angela Kennedy]

Why would anybody email a person who doesn't want anything to do with them?

Lots of reasons. Perhaps to point out a good opportunity for that person to do the right thing?

Are you autistic spectrum?

At the moment, you're the one sounding autistic, I'm afraid.

Not in the slightest, he used an effective metaphor.

Could we PLEASE refrain from the 'autistic' name calling please? I don't care whether it's intended as methaphor or a genuinely held belief, it's done purely to discredit people's views (an example of ad hominem), and it's an insult to people who suffer from the condition.

Or shall we start calling each other 'gay' and 'spastics' as insults as well?

[Achromatic]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

Should we also AFD what is perhaps the ultimate pseudoscience, Alchemy? If not, why not?

[Somey]

Could we PLEASE refrain from the 'autistic' name calling please? I don't care whether it's intended as methaphor or a genuinely held belief, it's done purely to discredit people's views (an example of ad hominem), and it's an insult to people who suffer from the condition.

He started it!

Still, you're right - I should have just deleted that remark completely, or perhaps replaced it with the word "twat," or better yet, "poopy pants." Sorry about that!

[Angela Kennedy]

Could we PLEASE refrain from the 'autistic' name calling please? I don't care whether it's intended as methaphor or a genuinely held belief, it's done purely to discredit people's views (an example of ad hominem), and it's an insult to people who suffer from the condition.

He started it!

Still, you're right - I should have just deleted that remark completely, or perhaps replaced it with the word "twat," or better yet, "poopy pants." Sorry about that!

Twat, poopy pants, prick or arsehole is absolutely fine (I mean as generic insults).

[dogbiscuit]

Twat, poopy pants, prick or arsehole is absolutely fine (I mean as generic insults).

I think you are being unfair to the doubly incontinent and those who are troubled in the nether regions myself.

[Angela Kennedy]

Twat, poopy pants, prick or arsehole is absolutely fine (I mean as generic insults).

I think you are being unfair to the doubly incontinent and those who are troubled in the nether regions myself.

Yes- but doubly incontinent and troubled nether region sufferers will not have their arguments/position trashed by insinuating they have mental health issues, which really is a prime example of ad hominem, and insulting to people who are actually neurologically challenged through no fault of their own. That sort of thing is far more dangerous and offensive than generic obscene terms: twat, arsehole and prick are relatively value neutral insults- after all, most of us have one of them in common, and the other two we tend to have in common with at least some people.

I'd rather be called a C*** than have my mental health called into question - but then I've seen perhaps more than most what actual damage the second type of attack does to people.

Monday morning- and I'm fighting for the right to be called a c***.

[dogbiscuit]

Monday morning- and I'm fighting for the right to be called a c***.

Glad to be of service

[Appleby]

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

Should we also AFD what is perhaps the ultimate pseudoscience, Alchemy? If not, why not?

They're fine so long as it is made clear that they are pseudoscience yet are notable for some reason.

[Mathsci]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion. Editors on WP can try to debunk pseudoscience (using RS), but that can often cause more trouble than it's worth if the pseudoscientists are living and active on the internet.

Hydrino theory is a good example of a discredited pseudoscientific theory which apparently for the time being does not merit a separate wikipedia article.

[Abd]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion. Editors on WP can try to debunk pseudoscience (using RS), but that can often cause more trouble than it's worth if the pseudoscientists are living and active on the internet.

Hydrino theory is a good example of a discredited pseudoscientific theory which apparently for the time being does not merit a separate wikipedia article.

Well, I fully understand the thinking, but hydrino theory is more than just something promoted by BlackLight Power, and having Hydrino (T-H-L-K-D) as a simple redirect to BlackLight Power is pretty misleading. Sure, Mills is the original theorist, but there is RS that doesn't mention BlackLight Power.

However, that's just an opinion. The matter should be decided according to what is in reliable source, not according to my opinion or Mathsci's opinion or LeadSongDog's opinion. It's obvious that hydrino theory isn't "generally accepted," indeed, the opposite. But it is a huge encyclopedia, and having a couple of articles, fairly short, dealing with hydrinos, Blacklight Power, or any other notable aspect, notability as shown by presence in reliable source, is to be expected, normally.

I see no basis for calling hydrino theory "pseudoscience," yet. Absolutely, challenges very well-accepted theory, but challenge to accepted theory does not make for "pseudoscience," not when the techniques and methods of science are being used. There are obvious reasons to be skeptical of both hydrino theory and the claims of BlackLight Power, but it is not at all the job of Wikipedia editors to make these judgments or to overlay an opinion on the articles, but rather, it's an obligation to follow the sources and find consensus.

Hydrinos are one of the explanations advanced for cold fusion. I may think that's bogus, for a number of reasons, but the fact is that it is in relaible source, independently published. That deserves a mention in the cold fusion article; it actually made it there, and stuck for a while, having been accepted by Hipocrite, until WMC, your hero and martyr, reverted it out with his "lets wind everyone up" edit.

There has been argument against hydrino theory, as is to be expected. It is not accepted, as is to be expected. Biut I have not seen anything so far that actually "discredits" it, until and unless the experimental evidence asserted is impeached successfully. Otherwise, at the very least, hydrino theory stands as a conceivable explanation of one or more anomalies, unconfirmed.

The situation is quite different with cold fusion itself. Low energy nuclear reactions are abundantly confirmed, recognized in reliable source, and the weight of reliable source overall, favoring the reality of LENR, is huge. Only by determined and persistent rejection of peer-reviewed reliable source have the skeptics been able to keep the story of what was called by skeptics "the scientific fiasco of the twentieth century" out of Wikipedia. One article? I have material from skeptics, enough for quite a few articles, plus all the other material which is weightier, overall.

Did you know that JzG's supposedly skeptical friend, the electrochemist whom he practically worshipped, and to whom he ascribed his views on cold fusion, actually believed that the excess heat was real, according to JzG, and simply that it wasn't likely to be nuclear in origin, but due to some other unknown explanation? Science has been built from investigating anomalies, not from rejecting them as "unidentified experimental error."

But there are a whole series of facts that somehow got overlooked by many in the process of burying cold fusion, such as excess heat/helium correlation at the right Q value, confirmed by multiple independent groups, known by the mid-1990s. And certainly JzG's friend wasn't going to see the reports of the Q value in the Wikipedia article, which is what he was commenting on to JzG, it was systematically excluded in spite of abundant presence in multiple peer-reviewed secondary sources, supposedly the gold standard, passed over in favor of weak sources stating what is recognized as a total misunderstanding by an anonymous bureaucrat.

Had it been there, the electrochemist might have said, "Hmm.... what's this? Is this real? Let me look at that source .... Really? I'm going to have to think about this!"

Mathsci, you have helped a total ignoramus on science, Enric Naval, who didn't know the difference between nuclei, atoms, and molecules, literally, and who didn't know the difference between a correlation and a anecdotal result, sit on cold fusion, so, you will get what you richly deserve. A promise. And I don't have to lift a finger. But I will anyway, whether you can imagine it or not.

[Mathsci]

Mathsci, you have helped a total ignoramus on science, Enric Naval, who didn't know the difference between nuclei, atoms, and molecules, literally, and who didn't know the difference between a correlation and a anecdotal result, sit on cold fusion, so, you will get what you richly deserve. A promise. And I don't have to lift a finger. But I will anyway, whether you can imagine it or not.

I have done no such thing. I might possibly have helped in identifying a disruptive editor.

I suppose you are talking about Oppenheimer–Phillips process, a physics stub.

On the talk page ScienceApologist, a Ph.D. student in astrophysics at Columbia University, referred to your own misconceptions. He also quite rightly called hydrino theory outlandish.

But it's just a stub. Please move on. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Tue 22nd September 2009, 3:55am

[Somey]

But it's just a stub. Please move on. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Four paragraphs with references is a stub? Well, then, with stubs like that, who needs articles?

Enric Naval, who I believe is also a WR member, made this collection of edits (multidiff) to the Blacklight Power (T-H-L-K-D) article that included this paragraph:

An article in the technology column of the New York Time described in 2008 how Mills had kept plugging on and getting $60 million in venture funding despite his theories being first rejected and then ignored by the scientific community during years; it called the Blacklight reactors an interesting technology that could revolutionize the energy world, although it said that it was prudent to wait for more independient verification.

I can see at least one or two errors in there right off the bat.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion.

The internet is equally a wonderful tool of self-promotion for the fetid old farts belonging to Septic Societies (sic) to amplify their priggish brays of "discredited" and "pseudoscience", and to coordinate and encourage themselves.

The Pee-dia might just bring the worst of all such cults together in order to waste their time in endless and pointless conflict rather than actually doing any science or going off and making life a nicer place for the rest of us.

God, it is so boring but by no means the worst shit on the Pee-dia that is "not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". In fact, come to think about it, "not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" is just another such meaningless bray. The ultimate meaningless condescension because the Pee-dia is not an encyclopedia.

Has anyone else had a look in some of the dark and dusty corners recently? It is ridiculous. Cold Fusion is just another one of many idiotic and definitely 'under-unity' (in terms of the heat they generate on the Wiki-servers versus the energy required to make it happen) hot pots that draws such attention.

Take another obvious point of critical mass, the David Irving topic, where it takes not one but ... 28 ... separate references to nail him down as being "discredited" (despite that most are probably copies of the same ADL press release) when, on the other hand, "the best way" is apparently to just say, David Irving is ....

Personally, I'd rather be honestly called a cunt as well, rather than have someone contort themselves with some attempt to sound pseudo-intellectual ... whilst meaning worse.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 22nd September 2009, 5:21am