User talk:ABlake

Welcome to the talk page of Aaron Blake.

COI Disclaimer: I work with Eric Lerner and am VP of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. As such, I have a conflict of interest when dealing with all related pages, such as Eric Lerner, aneutronic fusion, etc. I try not to let my COI influence my edits, but if it appears to you otherwise, please note it below. Thanks.

Redshift citations

I wonder whether you would cast your eye over my comments (see Poor Notes), concerning the footnotes in the Redshift article. The article has recently received Featured article status, however, I think that some of the references are inadequate. --Iantresman 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the proposed decision page

Only arbitors are allowed to edit proposed decision pages. JBKramer 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for the heads up. ABlake 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Iantresman

Can you explain to me why you wrote to Ian alerting him about my contributions to scientific community? Are you trying to inflame the conflict? --ScienceApologist 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. It wasn't an attempt to inflame the situation at all. Frankly, I am worried that you are on a crusade against ideas and people that contradict your preconceived point of view, which is intimately connected with the Big Bang theory somehow. Part of your crusade involves an argument that anything that isn't generally accepted by the scientific community is pseudoscience. You have been a very influential and prolific editor on the article on pseudoscience. Your additions to the article on the scientific community include this.

"Scientific consensus is of such importance to science pedagogy, the evaluation of new ideas, and research funding that critics of the consensus often bitterly complain that there is a closed shop bias within the scientific community toward new ideas (see articles on protoscience, fringe science, and pseudoscience)."

You have referred to some of these topics as pseudoscience because of their relationship to the scientific community, but when you are the author of those very definitions, it is a circular argument all based on your inputs. Ian only asked you to provide sources, which is appropriate. I asked him to get involved because you both seem to have much more time on your hands to write on Wikipedia than I do. I can't keep up with you and him and still have a life.

So, to sum it up, I suspect you are being sneaky in pushing your POV to the point of defining Wiki policies and classifying minority areas of science according to your beliefs in a grand scheme of protecting the Big Bang (or whatever underlying cause it is). I am not trying to inflame the conflict. I am trying to eliminate the conflict, and create an accurate encyclopedia that is worthy of use. I am not taking sides, and I'm not pushing a POV. On the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to call other people on their POV pushing, as I am in this case with you. I'm just worried that your POV pushing is becoming systemic, and raising that to Ian's awareness was just a form of check-and-balance. I care most about the integrity of Wikipedia, its articles, and its policies, and I hope you share that POV. Does that answer your question? ABlake 02:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an accurate encyclopedia, hopefully, we can both agree with. I'm concerned that you think somehow I've committed the sin of demarcation with respect to various fringe and crackpot theories. The primary reason I edit at Wikipedia is because I know how often students appeal to it as a first line of research. What we must guard against is the problem of POV-pushers like Ian with too much time on their hands lending undue weight to subjects that are ignored in the scientific community in an attempt to promote these points beyond their obscurity. Already, many of the articles Ian and I have "collaborated" on are top hits on Google. If it wasn't for my editting, these articles would look like paens to the great mavericks fighting the establishment with the facts rather than correctly characterizing their marginalization.

I am, frankly, appalled that you do not see how your actions were inflammatory. Instead of starting a dialogue with me, or even having the courtesy to let me know up front what you are doing, you sic Ian on my contributions in a way that looks very much like someone who hasn't taken the time to assume good faith. Your description of what I do above reads very much the same way. I have appreciated your contributions and your insights, but I frankly find your "worry" about my "crusade" to be offensive and ignorant.

--ScienceApologist 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was seeing motives that weren't there, and I hope that is the case. I likewise recognize the benefits of your many contributions, and that Wikipedia is better for it. If you feel that your actions have been in good faith, I will take your word for it. Just so you know, the language that you choose in your editing influences how others see your intent, and many times people have assumed as I have, that you seem to have it "in for" particular topics or people and are not acting in good faith. Demarcation is a fundamental concern, and it should be addressed directly rather than indirectly fought on each and every point of data. Wouldn't that save time and frustration? In the future, maybe we could work together with Ian to come to a mutual understanding of the lines of demarcation on these various topics. That would solve the interpersonal, editorial, and factual conflicts that seem to continuously pop up. Fair enough? ABlake 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely fair. The type of solution you describe is exactly what I hope for, but am becoming increasingly skeptical about reaching. In the arbitration case, I formulated my views on demarcation and they are now part of Wikipedia: Notability (science) and WP:FRINGE. Check out those guidelines to see what I mean. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a forum or page (other than my talk page) where we could all get together and hammer this out? ABlake 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) How about demarcation problem? ABlake 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this explains your position very well. If you put some of these ideas at the top of your talk page, it would probably help people understand your actions and motivations. Just a suggestion. Your "crusade" is respectable, as explained, but it would help if people understood it up front so they could AGF about your edits and know what to do to keep within the bounds of policy in the first place. ABlake (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

After taking a long Wiki break while deployed to faraway places, I'm back. ABlake 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you?

[1]? If so you should stop editing all articles related to Eric Lerner, focus fusion, dense plasma focus, etc. See WP:COI. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is me. I am very aware of WP:COI, and take great pains to write as directed in WP:COI. From the policy, "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." I have always maintained a neutral tone in my edits, and I stick with the policies that govern appropriate editing. If you have a concern with any of my edits showing a non-neutral POV (promotion vs describing), definitely bring it to my attention. ABlake (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABlake, have you read this [2] ? ScienceApologist is Joshua Schroeder, past JC science instructor and graduate student in astronomy, I gather working for his advanced degree. There can be no doubt of his conflict of interest concerning an article about a person with an opposing theory. Both of them base their career on being on the right side of the cosmology. Tom Butler (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It all makes a little more sense now. For the life of me, I couldn't understand what drives him so passionately to make the kind of statements that he does, non-stop. Turns out to be job security and professional rivalry. Hmmm. And he's telling me to stop editing these articles because of WP:COI. Very nice. Very nice. Just have to smile and shake my head. ABlake (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck joining forces with Tom Butler. I'll thank you to stay off the Eric Lerner article page from now on. Thanks a lot! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Not again... That's twice in two days. This really must stop. ABlake (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eric Lerner, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. As a business associate of Eric Lerner, you should not be editing his article. You may contribute on the talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, and your suggestion is duly noted. As prescribed, I have and will continue to exercise great caution when editing, participating, linking, and following relevant policies and guidelines regarding WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:AUTO. ABlake (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branching out

It is good to see you branching out away from your WP:SPA past. This is encouraging. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since the article on Eric Lerner is now fairly respectable, I'm expanding my horizons. ABlake (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

Hello ABlake. I responded to your comment at Talk:Chiropractic. It will soon be archived, so I thought I would copy my response here in case you didn't have a chance to see it. Chiropractic is a noun [3]. Compare a google search for "Chiropracty" to a google search for "Chiropractic". 1000x the results for Chiropractic. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did see your response, and I should have done a bit more homework before offering my opinion. Your response was very diplomatic and correct. Cheers. ABlake (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider

WP:NPF. I think it may apply to Eric Lerner. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's absolutely right. ABlake (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said on the talkpage, I'll support you if you want to remove all of his political activity. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let things blow over and settle down a bit. ABlake (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]