User talk:Jefffire/Archive the third

Characterization of Ig Nobel Prize

Hello, Jefffire. What a coincidence. I went to that section of the article with the intention of deleting "generally uncoveted" for reasons of POV and saw that you had done so earlier today.

I'm curious, though, why you left in the innacurate characterization of the Ig Nobel as "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced" and deleted the accurate characterization. I wasn't able to find that characterization of the Ig Nobel on the Ig Nobel web site. And when I checked the citations, they did indeed characterize it in those words, but themselves gave no citation for that wording. On the other hand, the wording that I had inserted was directly from the Ig Nobel web site. TimidGuy 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain: I had left in place what I felt was an inaccurate characterization because I didn't want to provoke the editor who had inserted it. I had simply added the quote from the Ig Nobel web site. If you don't mind, I'll delete the "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced" and more briefly reference the Ig Nobel site.

By the way, your earlier feedback on the article was quite helpful, and gave me good direction in regard to sourcing.TimidGuy 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, remove that part. Jefffire 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.TimidGuy 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same idea regarding the placement of the Canter and Ernst study.Thanks for relocating it. And had intended to delete the "relaxation" paragraph left over from an earlier version, so thanks for doing that, too. Regarding the deletion in the Fees section, Invincible America is actually a bona fide web site making the offer that was noted. But I'm not sure it's useful to include this information in the article. In fact, it almost seems like this whole section could be deleted. I greatly condensed the Adverse Effects section per your earlier suggestion on the Talk page, and reanamed it.TimidGuy 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, when you wrote "spam" my brain heard "vandalism." Yes, I can agree it was spam. TimidGuy 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think you've made some good contributions to the TM article. I agreed that undue weight was given to the David OJ critique, for example. And I agree that the study on the Maharishi Effect could have context. But I just noticed that you had a minor error in the title of the critical study regarding grades that you had inserted. Then I realized you had perhaps gotten your info from a POV site such as [1], which has the same mistake in the title. If that's the case, I'm sort of surprised that you, as a scientist, would rely on such sites as a source for scientific information. Anyway, thanks for your interest in the TM article. Overall, I think you've helped to improve it. TimidGuy 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the journal and the scientific consensus matters, not the website you hear about it from. Scientificly speaking, you point is empty. Jefffire 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should crack down on the reliability ... red rain

Ey Up Jefffire,

That's Yorkshire for 'hi'. While I'd agree in principle, it's a bit tricky to achieve with NPOV. But it might also be a bit tricky without potentially damaging the tourism trade in Kerala. Discounting the spacedust, the possibilities are trentepohlia, airborne sand, or industrial pollution.

Equally, Chandra Wickramasinghe seems both to have something of a following and, given that two BBC horizon programmes were made around his work, pandemics and panspermia, the ear of some bits of the media. His colleague, Milton Wainwright, seems to have bowed out from the red rain business; though he was at the recent conference that Wickramasinghe hosted at Cardiff.

It's difficult to know what Wickramasinghe's exit strategy is - if he has one. He might genuinely believe that he has samples of spacedust in his lab. And without access to samples (Louis wouldn't provide them to a geoscientist who asked years ago, and neither will Wainwright release any or any results of chromatography) it's difficult to see how the issue can ever be properly grounded.

In this sort of situation, no astro-scientist is likely to want to comment for fear of having their reputation tarnished.

Maybe the whole thing will gently fade... In any even there seem to have been huge moves towards combatting pollution in Kerala in the last few years, though it's a pity to note that Endosulphan is being used again despite being banned in many other places.

Best regards Davy p 00:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies I don't have much time to dedicate to this currently, but I can offer the following sugestions: The issue divides into two main areas; Wheather the particles are alive, and whether the particles are terrestrial. To address each it's important to stick to only rigourus journals for scientific claims since it's such a controversial area, conversely remove any scientific claims drawn only from magazines such as NewScientist which aren't peer reviewed journals. I'll give the article a vigorous review in about a month (which is when I'll have spare time again ;) ).

Watch youself though, this is the kind of article which can become heated. Jefffire 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecdysozoa

Dear Jefffire, I took the liberty to bring back the Ecdysozoa controversy part in a slightly rephrased way. If you still think this is nothing but POV, I would be happy to know what could be done to reduce the POV-like appearance of what I have added. I am not a native speaker of English, after all, and some passages may sound a bit more affirmative and provocative than they deserve, and than I wanted them to be.

I would like to ensure you once again that I added the controversy section because I believed that whenever a notable controversy still exists within the scientific community, it should be clearly mentioned in the article. Moreover, as a Zoologist by education I know that some claims made by the inventors of Ecdysozoa (like the one about the amoeboid sperm in all Ecdysoza) are not factually true, which can be confirmed by any sound University textbook, let alone by monographs specifically written on the subject. I do know that Wikipedia is no place for original research, but I tried my best to add the references to the reliable sources pulished either as papers in the peer-reviewed journals, or as scientific monographs.

Sincerely, Alexei Kouprianov 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I put your talk page on my Watchlist, so, please, feel free to answer wherever you feel comfortable.

I fully agree that controversy exists, but the lophotrocozoan/ecdysozoan clades are now the majority view of biologists and whilst there are irregularities like some of those you mention, they are not fundamental problems and aren't rigidly accepted as synapomorphies. I'm limited for time at the moment, but in a few weeks I'd like to take a better look at the issue. Jefffire 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll be waiting. As for the majority, I am still in doubt, because it heavily depends on how do you defne biologists in this particular case. It is as useful as to inquire people in the street, whether they really believe that they descended from apes? Last spring the Russian Centre for Public Opinion (VCIOM) pulished a result of their poll showing that no more than 40% strongly agree with this claim. Now what? Should we rewrite the Russian wiki article about Homo sapiens to reflect the majority opinion (i.e., that human beings are of divine or extraterrestrial origin)? How can you be sure that the majority of experts in arthropods, annelids, roundworms, tardigrada, and other groups involved hold to the view that Ecdysozoa is a monophyletic group? I doubt. Never heard of such polls. Did you? Alexei Kouprianov 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it's general acceptance in most major biological journals and the article therein as a fairly good indication. Jefffire 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second, are we discussing whether every single thing in the Ecysozoa belongs there, or whether it's a natural grouping at all? Jefffire 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dear Jefffire,

I am working with a few people on improving the Ohio Wesleyan University article to an FA status. I was told that you might be willing to help us with POV issues that might still be present in the article. Do you mind taking a look when you have the time? Thank you so much!!!WikiprojectOWU 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help, but I'm quite busy for the next few days. Come wedensdays I've all the time in the world. Jefffire 12:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you! It will be greatly appreciated! I think there may be minor POV issues left additional edits/comments help us improve the article tremendously! WikiprojectOWU 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohm interpretation

Hi,

On 16 November 2006, you removed a large section of the article on the Bohm interpretation. When such a large, whole-sale deletion is done, it is customary to copy the deleted text to the talk page, and explicitly critique it to indicate what was wrong with it. Without such notice, the edit seems vandalistic, and that is not good. Your edit summary was "Remove this essay. Wikipedia does not publish original research", however, I fail to say any basis for this remark; it doesn't seem to be original research, it seems to be a rather mainline discussion. In your next edit summary, you state "I can't approach many meaning changes due to my lack of experise, but the article is definately confusing and lacking in verification in places." This begs a question: if you lack expertise, by what rational to do you explain a large deletion?

If you find the article confusing, you should raise this as an issue on the talk page. The article is written at a rather low, non-technical level that I would hope is approachable by the layman. Specific,detailed commentary is a much more useful guide to future editors, than some blanket statement along the lines of "gee I don't get it." linas 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is clearly unverified PoV. Wikipedia does not publish unverified material or PoV material. I have removed the section. Please see WP:PoV and WP:NOR. Jefffire 11:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Voice Phenomenon

There is an article published by MIT Press that I cannot access. It may be a worthy source for the EVP article. I was wondering if your academic connections might enable you to read it.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/09611210152780728?journalCode=lmj

--- LuckyLouie 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it appears to exist outside our system. Luckily the abstract give s a fairly clear indication of the results (as they should). Jefffire 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facilitated Communication

Hi Jefffire - While a scientific majority may believe FC is not scientifically proven, that's not the same as consensus (nor is "not proven" the same as "pseudoscience"). Without such consensus, I don't see how using cat:PS is NPOV. Of course, that doesn't preclude fully discussing all views of FC. It's just that the category is an on/off thing and is misleading if there is real debate about the issue. Please see my full reply at Talk:Facilitated Communication. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final request

Dear Jefffire,

I am finalizing the edits on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. It has gone through a very thorough copyediting process. I wanted you to take one last look for any POV issues if you have some time? Thank you for your time! I greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, excellent, excellent article. The only problem with the article I can find is that it is considerably longer than desirable. However it should simply be a simple matter to partition it into a number of sub-article (such as Student Activity in Ohio Wesleyan University, for example, but that's best left to people with knowledge about the university.

Incidently, it sounds like a great place. Jefffire 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Dear Jefffire,

Thank you so much for the nice comments! I very much appreciate it! The size of the article is bigger only due to the extensive referencing. I just nominated the Ohio Wesleyan University article in the FAC process. Thank you once again! LaSaltarella 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV cleanup

I know you like to remove POV material, so here's an article I found that seems to need some work: Downtown Youngstown. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoscience?

Saw your change. Seems better. But still I know that intelligent design, phrenology and astrology are considered pseudoscience. But what really distingushes those from say SETI, Darwinism, Gravity etc. How about Psychology? Sociology? Archaeology? Just interested. 69.211.150.60 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefly, the scientific positions make testable predictions which are borne up by evidence. If you are interested in the distinction the article Demarcation problem has some interesting insights (although it is written from a sociological view point). Jefffire 13:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me put these pages in place?

Dear Jefffire,

Pl. Help me put the info on New alternate healing methods on wikipedia. I am not able to put them there or find the pages I had put by search.

It is necessary for people to know about Kriya Reiki & Vishitao Reiki. I have tried to put the info again without my name appearing in it. Though I am the receiver of the methods, if you all are feeling that putting the name of the person thro' whom a gift to humanity was channelled is advertising, it's ok. I don't mind even if my name does not appear in the method info. The method of healing is important as it can help humanity.

I am looking for your support.

Dr. Rekhaa Kale

I'm afraid I cannot give support here. This practice does not appear notable enough to warrent an encyclopedia entry. Jefffire 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Hi Jefffire -- Kindly re-read Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence and then address the problems of self-selection bias raised at Talk:Homeopathy#Categorization_redux. Ideally, you might add something more on point than "this debate has been done to death". regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Dragging a discussion on indefinately because you do not like the conclusion helps no-one. If you disagree with the conclusion, I invite you to file a RfC. Jefffire 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decline to discuss sources' selection bias, and then assert there's no consensus to remove an edit that you have not shown warrants keeping, I suppose an RfC is the next option if I want to pursue this. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy rewrite

Hey, I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The article has major problems and I'm trying to turn it into a featured article and I noticed you were a major contributor to it so I thought you might want to help. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly support the intent of the effort and from a cursory review of the draft it looks fairly acceptable to me. However, I would have to put more time into reading it before I gave my definitive opinion. Thanks for informing me of this. Jefffire 19:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Fyslee is in violation of WP:CCC. Please refer to chart. --Anthon01 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefffire, this complaint is part of Anthon01's attempt to force his will on the Applied Kinesiology article. He seems to think that the CCC chart is a permission to stop all progress by simply deleting good content that is extremely well-sourced, and that reverting, edit warring, terse edit summaries, and repeated refusals to specifically explain the problem on the talk page (only leaving more demands and charges of failure to follow CCC) are a proper way to deal with the matter. The talk page is where collaboration takes place and I have tried to get him to use it, but with no success. He has then requested page protection, to which I responded:

"Absurd request by a newbie. Anthon01 has been vandalizing the page by repeatedly removing extremely well-sourced material, including a whole paragraph. I was considering this a newbie problem, but his actions are beginning to look like an experienced user who is gaming the system. I am trying to get him to use the talk page, but instead he reverts and uses edit summaries. Collaboration happens on the talk page. He is refusing to precisely explain his concerns there."

He has now been blocked for edit warring, so the problem is resolved for the moment, but probably not in the future. I am perfectly willing to collaborate and discuss the problem with him on the talk page. If my edits are improper, unbalanced, poorly sourced, etc., then I'm certainly willing to change them. I just need some cooperation and explanation. Then we can get a consensus, but that can't happen without detailed discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merge templates

The date syntax is: {{Merge|any other arguments|date=January 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 10:48 2 January 2008 (GMT).

My mistake, regards. Jefffire (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macroevolution

I think the macroevolution article is POV. The article needs to mention that there is still debate about macroevolution (or else it would be a scientific law). Thanks, Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on the scientific meaning of theory, and on the scientific meaning of law. Jefffire (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic edits

Why would you revert the edits that are simply extension of WFC and WHO explanations what DCs do? Furthermore, the edits were made the clarify and provide better cohesion of the article and avoid unncessary repetition.

To provide clarification, what is your professional designation and scientific credentilals?

I reverted your edits because there was no explanation of them on the talk page, and there was no edit summary. As a result, there was no way to evaluate the veracity or the acceptance of the change. In the future, please provide details of changes on the talk page of the article, provide and explanation in the edit summary. Jefffire (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA talk page

I am not trying to poke, but defend myself against baseless accusations. Before SA's block, he was moving my comment on Bleep into a new section. I needed to warn him about edit warring. When you made this comment "This was deliberate harassment of SA, in my opinion," did you think the warning I posted on his talk page is poking? Anthon01 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. The user removed reverted patently bad edits, and was right to do so. Harassing an experienced editor with "warnings" is fairly blatant poking. Jefffire (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the patently bad edits? Have you actually reviewed the edits? Regarding my warning on his talk page, I thought they were 'fair warning' before escalating. Anthon01 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which of the bad edits your talking about. Is it the constant Pubmed diving? Or the general opposition to productive editing on What the Bleep? Jefffire (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't look at edits. You don't know what this is about. But you feel comfortable calling them "patently bad edits." Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Jefffire (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked. A new section was clearly the way to go, so SA was right. Jefffire (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dlabtot and myself both disagree with you. If you are so certain why not escalate? Anthon01 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this whole "escalation" thing is part of why you are not a good editor. Jefffire (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's childish and petty. Jefffire (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To escalate is childish and petty? I am talking about taking it somewhere for comment or enforcement, like WQA or ANI. Anthon01 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They way you have gone about it is. SA is one of Wikipedia's best editors, keeping large numbers of article free of dribble, nonsense, pseudoscience and the general crap that such a project attracts from the reality-detached. You have gone about essentially baiting him since he has obvious temper issues. From your edits it's pretty clear what side of the good-editor/bad-editor line you stand on, and I've wasted enough of my time with your shenanigans on talk:homeopathy. Your further comments will be removed. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]