User talk:Moroder~enwiki
Please don't include non-peer reviewed papers in science articles while removing peer-reviewed ones
Moroder, Welcome to Wikipedia. Apparently you think that in Wikipedia you may delete opinions with which you disagree and add opinions with which you agree. Not so! Please keep your opinions as to what is "right" or "wrong" to yourself.
It doesn't matter if you ridicule certain countries (as long as you don't do it here!), nor does it matter if you think that scientists who have their own opinions are "unscientific" or 'incorrect". Before getting into trouble I advice you to read the policies, starting with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And please take heed of the policy for science articles to only refer to peer-reviewed articles in respected journals. Thanks to the policy we editors must abstain from doing our own reviews. Harald88 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
PS on a more positive note: apparently you are knowledgable about physics topics. I like to encourage you to add information from scientific papers to the relevant physics articles in the places where such is lacking -- there is still quite a lot to be done. Harald88 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I know I am. I just don't like antirelativistic pseudo-science. And I remove it when I see it Moroder 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also don't like pseudoscience in science articles, and the peer-review rule provides a measure of protection as it blocks most of that. Just be prepared that self-opinioned actions will often be speedily undone, unless you convince other editors that you improve the quality of the article -- for example by replacing a referenced paper by a much better one that conveys the same opinion or by adding another high quality reference that conveys a differing opinion. Adding better references rarely causes disagreement, and in the long run the poorer references are removed if superfluous. Cheers, Harald88 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Removing phony references is even better. The paper in discussion has no room in an encyclopedia Moroder 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also don't like pseudoscience in science articles, and the peer-review rule provides a measure of protection as it blocks most of that. Just be prepared that self-opinioned actions will often be speedily undone, unless you convince other editors that you improve the quality of the article -- for example by replacing a referenced paper by a much better one that conveys the same opinion or by adding another high quality reference that conveys a differing opinion. Adding better references rarely causes disagreement, and in the long run the poorer references are removed if superfluous. Cheers, Harald88 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I know I am. I just don't like antirelativistic pseudo-science. And I remove it when I see it Moroder 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't remove sections that correspond to your anti-mainstream view. General relativity is nowadays regarded as a theory of gravitation. Harald88 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)