User talk:Drac2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prod at Sharon Weinberger

Please don't continually replace the prod tag on the article. Once there is a dispute; the nomination should be made at AFD per WP:DP. If you need any help creating an entry there, please let me know and I'd be happy to help you out. Kuru ^talk 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru. It does seem to be controversial. When I started I thought since there was no reason for the page to be in Wikipedia, it would be uncontested. Turns out to be quite the opposite. So, here we go with the AFD process as recommended. --Drac2000 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - since there is another editor who is keen on prodding and re-prodding; I've gone ahead and created the AFD; please add your analysis at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharon_Weinberger. I have not had the time to look at all the data, so I posted it neutral. Thanks for your attention to this. Kuru ^talk 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Concerns

Disinformation as a topic. --Drac2000 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry, perhaps I struck the wrong tone at the IGE article; no slight of recent efforts was intended. linas 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Linas, thanks for you kind comment. I found your constructive criticism over at the Induced gamma emission talk page to be extremely helpful. Please continue to share your talent and expretise and we will achieve something that is a credit to Wikipedia. As I said my background is more with laser concepts and for me that makes these interdisciplinary efforts particularly exciting. I will address your insights and thoughtful comments over on the discussion page next. Just wanted to convey my personal thanks here first thing today.

Regards, --Drac2000 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and you've done a fine job on the article so far. The reason for the controversy can be better understood once you've seen some typical bad-behaviour patterns. -- We have "true believers" who document perpetual motion machines (category:perpetual motion machines) as if they really really worked; edit wars start when someone comes to insert a sentence to the effect: "this won't ever work". We have people who have proven Einstein to be wrong .. Sheesh. They get quickly deleted, but not without a fight. Theories of UFO propulsion ... Category:Pseudophysics. On the medical side, we have intense arguments about the true dangers of environmental pollutants, and about whether some hopeful but untested cure works -- even the efficacy of vitamins is contested. Many of the "problem editors" have a poor background in science -- but not always. There have been a few quite legit academics, who have made quite outrageous statements; in one case the person, though actually quite well-respected for their early work, was banned after more than half a year of abusive editing. Far too often, we have rational, well-balanced editors who have no expertise in a field trying to keep the kooks at bay: so even for the well-meaning editor, it becomes difficult to tell truth from fiction. It is this last case that seems to apply to IGE. There does not currently seem to be an ongoing controversy there, but you can certainly see the fallout. linas 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)