User talk:Gavinsky2
Dear Gavinsky2, Thanks for your edits to the Graham Nicholls page, I think some of them are fair, although generally negative in tone. However, I do wish to know your reasoning for removing the activism section? It seems to me that removing it does not improve the article in any way. It is clear that you have a dislike of Mr. Nicholls for some reason and I must point out that as you have no other edits to wikipedia you could be viewed as vandalising the page, although I don't think you are. But please do let me know why you removed the activism section, if I don't hear from you I will simply revert or replace it. Maria N (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I also just noticed that you write his "claimed" collaboration with Rupert Sheldrake, yet this was publicly announced on Sheldrake's website, and even skeptical sites reported it: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1577 and as far as the results being made public, I know it was part of the Perrott-Warrick Project, so would have been included in that research. So it seems to me that the your statement is misleading for the sake of painting a negative image, but I will leave it until you explain your edits. Maria N (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
REBUTTAL
Nicholls claimed work with Sheldrake has never moved beyond blogsite speculation and general PR hype into the world of actual peer review science. Almost three years ago Mr Nicholls may have had a brief name-check on a personal website of a fringe-science researcher but has that actually materialised into anything beyond the subsequent Wikipedia publicity inflation by the inknown Maria N ? I t hink not, but I would be grateful if you could post details of *any* peer-reviewed scientific work by Mr Nicholls before making such accusations of "vandalism" on my part. Even the fringe world of parapsychology publication seems completely devoid of any mention of the alleged "expert" Mr Graham Nicholls who has no official relationship AT ALL with the Perrot-Warrick Fund at Trinity College Cambridge which you mention here. Please specify and clarify the relationship Mr Nicholls may have with this endowment or else delete it forthwith. Please bear in mind the potential for personal embarssment Mr Nicholls may find in futher public investigation of such claims made on an established and very well known University College. Additionally I am very surprised that such an obscure figure as Mr Nicholls should warrant a Wikipedia entry based on nothing more than slight internet presence (mostly his own blogs) and a Staunch Wikipedia support from a certain Maria N who would seem you have more than a certain personal connection to the man himself and who with any honesty should declare that herself.
- Dear Gavinsky2, You obviously feel very strongly about this, I don't. I like his work and admire his art and writing, that's it really. So I've decided that the best course of action to avoid tention or bad feeling is for me to move on to other artists and articles. I do think you are being a little unfair to him, he seems genuine to me, can I ask why you feel like this? Did he do something dishonest or something? If I knew of something like that I might be more supportive of your position. But anyway I'm going to keep out of it, other than trying to keep it fair. Have good day. Maria N (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)