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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing phony references is even better. The paper in discussion has no room in an encyclopedia Moroder 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove sections simply because they don't correspond to your anti-mainstream view. General relativity is nowadays regarded as a theory of gravitation. Harald88 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't object to that, I objected to your insinuation that GR is somewhat unable to deal with accelerated motion. Moroder 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insinuate that and I agree that the phrasing was clumsy. Happily an anon (you?) motivated the reason for deletion and I fixed that. (I now copy this to the Talk page where it belongs). Harald88 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Harald88

Moroder - First of all my own "welcome to Wikipedia". I assure you that I am more on your side than Harald's, and have had my own run-ins with him already. He learns as he goes, but he definitely is not a trained physicist.

That said, you need to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Being a good scientist is neither necessary nor sufficient to being a good editor here even on the science articles. Instead you need to bring to this venture both a reasonable amount of knowledge and a willingness to work with people, as well as a willingness to work within the structure of Wikipedia. I have seen experts get pushed out because they try to force their opinions on Wikipedia and suppress other valid viewpoints. OTOH I have also seen blatant crackpots get bounced a lot faster.

My advice to you is to focus on content in your edits. Removal of inappropriate material is far preferenable to placing derogatory editorial comments within it. If Harald cannot justify his desired content, I am happy to back you up on its removal. The presense of well-meaning but mistaken editors in an issue here, but that is just part of the landscape. I assure you that the overall community does respect knowledge, and if the community is respected by you it will return that respect 10-fold to you. --EMS | Talk 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EMS. I tried editing out the incorrect stuff but User:Harald88 puts it right back in. This is frustrating. Could you please take out the Unnikrishnan paper from the Twins paradox. I explained the reasons why in PJacobi's talk page. Thank you for your vote of confidence, I am a professional physicist and it pains me to see junk being peddled as science Moroder 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have killed the last half of the offending section, including that silly reference. (The other lost reference was from the Australian journal of physics, which is probably as noteworthy as the Indian journal that other article was published in.) If you can back me up on that, I would appreciate it. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]