User talk:Urgent01
Tom van Flandern
[edit]What do you think needs changing on that page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the "Personal Philosophy" section has serious problems. The first sentence says van Flandern "noted a regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be". This is clearly false as an allegation against mainstream science (some physicists do nothing but re-examine fundamental assumptions!), so to say that Van Flandern "NOTED this practice" is wrong. At the very least it should say "alleged" rather than "noted". Also, the trailing phrase smuggles in the premise that new observations are incompatible with mainstream scientific assumptions. This is mostly a false insinuation. I think to be accurate the sentence would have to read something like this: "Van Flandern alleged that new experimental evidence is incompatible with the fundamental assumptions of mainstream science, but that it is the regular practice of mainstream scientists to not re-examine their fundamental assumptions, almost no matter how incompatible they are with experimental evidence". This makes it clear that it is an allegation rather than an observation, and also more clearly identifies the two distinct components of that allegation (both false). Also, to accurately represent Van Flandern's views, the article would have to add what Van Flandern thought was the reason for this bad behavior of mainstream scientists: He claimed they intentionally clung to their falsified beliefs just to keep their jobs and sources of funding. Yes, that's crazy, for several reasons, but it was Van Flandern's stated claim. By not accurately presenting his claims in their entirety, the article gives a false and biased view.
- This is just the first sentence of the section. Each of the remaining sentences has similar (or worse) problems in my opinion. I doubt that the article can be fixed (given the long standing ownership issue), but the tags should remain to alert the readers. Cheers. Urgent01 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you, except that I think it is better to try to fix the article rather than add tags. Why not rewrite the bits you think are wrong. I think there is too much detail anyway and that the article should just contain a brief summary of his scientific views. It is not the purpose of the article to support or deprecate van Flandern's views just to state briefly what they were and that they were, generally, contrary to mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that a fixed article would be preferable to a bad article with tags. But worst of all would be a bad article with no tags. So I think, until the article is actually fixed, the tags need to remain. I actually did try to fix the article some time ago (you may remember me, I used to edit under the user name Flau98bert), but I encountered severe "ownership" issues. (Check the archives of the article Talk page.) This, along with the lack of interest on the part of other mainstream editors, makes it unlikely that the article can be fixed any time soon. Cheers. Urgent01 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you, except that I think it is better to try to fix the article rather than add tags. Why not rewrite the bits you think are wrong. I think there is too much detail anyway and that the article should just contain a brief summary of his scientific views. It is not the purpose of the article to support or deprecate van Flandern's views just to state briefly what they were and that they were, generally, contrary to mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarification
[edit]In your comments you "reminded" me that "Wikipedia editors are strongly discouraged from inserting references to their own writings". Just in case, I did not write anything about Ives or special relativity, although I helped to prepare one book in this area for publication. At the same time, I did insert many references to my scientific papers and other work in another subject area. This is all well known to some contributors around here, and no one objected. Yes, this is all consistent with WP:COI. I do not receive any payment for my work in wikipedia, and I do not have a conflict of interest anywhere in this project. My only purpose in the project is to promote knowledge. However, whatever you might think, please be advised of WP:Outing and WP:NPA policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
AE notice
[edit]A complaint about your editing was filed to WP:AE [1]. I think it would be a good idea if uninvolved administrators looked at this. You are very welcome to respond at WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw this AE request. One reason: this discussion of Ives views can be seen merely as a content dispute, and I am comfortable to continue this discussion. However, any further discussion should be about actual Physics, that is taking images from the books, explaining and discussing them etc. Unfortunately, I do not have time for that right now. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to challenge the source (that is what this is really about), this should be done on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, however, its Russian edition would certainly qualify as WP:RS per wikipedia rules. As about myself, I do have a real life connection to the source, although I do not have any profits from this whatsoever. This should not matter at all as long as I follow Wikipedia:Five pillars. However, I must be extra careful here, and this is another reason I withdrew this request. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am trying to be as cooperative as possible. However, your response, on article talk page is simply a violation of WP:NPA. Please comment on content, not on the contributor on article talk pages. If you have any problems with contributor, this should be reported on appropriate administrative noticeboards. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I would not answer to your repeated personal accusations on article talk page. However, what I did was completely in line with wikipedia rules. I inserted a reference into article "special relativity". A discussion followed, and it was a very civil discussion. It was decided that this reference should not be included in this particular article. This is something I never disputed or tried to re-insert later. Besides, it was many years ago. I only started editing on this site and was not familiar with the rules and practices. Bringing this now does not help to resolve any content disputes, would not you agree? Now, speaking about the book, I respectfully keep my opinion (as explained at article talk page) as someone with professional background in Physics. In addition, I trust to opinions by Vitaly Ginzburg and his colleagues much more than to opinions by contributors around here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am trying to be as cooperative as possible. However, your response, on article talk page is simply a violation of WP:NPA. Please comment on content, not on the contributor on article talk pages. If you have any problems with contributor, this should be reported on appropriate administrative noticeboards. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to challenge the source (that is what this is really about), this should be done on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, however, its Russian edition would certainly qualify as WP:RS per wikipedia rules. As about myself, I do have a real life connection to the source, although I do not have any profits from this whatsoever. This should not matter at all as long as I follow Wikipedia:Five pillars. However, I must be extra careful here, and this is another reason I withdrew this request. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I explained you the policies and gave a few days to respond. However, you continued making personal insults. Therefore, I had to resubmit this report. You are very welcome to reply at WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines
[edit]Now, I respectfully ask you to remove from this article talk page all your comments that go against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. A number of your comments, and especially your last comment (copy-paste of my comment dated 2006), were not about anything related to Ives. Thanks, P.S. Perhaps some of my comments (responses to yours) were also against talk page guidelines, and I am ready to remove them if you agree. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)