Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

[davesmith_au]

Phorce if you like to analyze, then analyze this if you have hours to spare:

Pig Wrestling

I tend to agree with your assessment. Schroeder should be an embarrassment to mainstream academia. Which is probably the reason behind him trying to erase all trace of his IRL (In Real Life) identity from Wikipedia, after he had made a point about telling those there how well educated he was by 'outing' himself previously, including linking to a page a Princeton which had his photo on it. Then the photo disappeared from the Princeton site, and Schroeder went about erasing his steps. He claims someone was harassing him in real life. Is it any wonder? But my hunch is that the head honchos at Princeton were embarrassed by his posturing on Wikipedia so they told him to maintain anonymity. Perhaps it was a combination of both?

Anyhow, on my pigwrestling page, you'll also notice lots of posts by user Phaedrus7. Take a look at the page for C. Leroy Ellenberger and than look at the page history, who has contributed most to that page. I know that Phaedrus7 IS Ellenberger, but of course I am prevented from alluding to that fact on Wikipedia because of its 'no outing' rules.

Both Schroeder and Ellenberger have a history of attempting to slur the name of David Talbott, yet both deny any conflict of interest (COI). I declared my potential COI BEFORE I began trying to make changes to Talbott's biography. As you will see by the collated information on the pigwrestling page, it was a futile exercise. Not only do I not have the time required to do battle with these zealots, no-one can get around the barrage of backup they'll call in when challenged.

Now to get back to the comments by Phorce, take a look at the Plasma Cosmology talk page, under the subheading "Expert needed" and you'll find this gem:

An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What a croc! Carlson would do well not to align himself too closely with Schroeder. Schroeder has not published a single scientific paper to my knowledge, though he is listed as a co-author of a couple of SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) papers along with a HUGE number of co-authors. This could hardly amount to expertise in Plasma Cosmology, nor in fact in any cosmology.

Cheers, Dave.

[Phorce]

You have clearly identified the anomalies. Why not move to next stage ? Bring in the big guns from other areas of academic research so these kind of gross misrepresentations can be tackled and the Science of EU - Plasma Cosmology - can be quickly given to a world that desperately needs it.

You could start with this publication Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science - free book- there must be similar publications in the field of physics and cosmology. It's in the field of health but the tactics are the same. In fact many of those tactics are so nasty that I look at them in Reichian terms as defined in Reichs book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (note: no cloudbusters or orgone here). Once I understood WHY Fascistic elements sadistically attack EU or other areas of Science desperately need by humanity, I was MUCH less annoyed by their usually sadistic behaviour.

[keeha]

What a destructive immature sociopath.

He has argued to get rid of Dave's page entirely! Yet I have a sibling with a wiki page just for showing up at a single sports event!

So much for ideals of progress in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist

I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio — even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/braggadocio

1 : braggart
2 a : empty boasting
b : arrogant pretension : cockiness

Is he even out of school yet?
http://www.velikovsky.info/Joshua_Schroeder

My formal background is chemistry. Would I be better served if particle theorists prevented me from learning wave theory? Yet this is what I see Schroeder doing with cosmological physics. Different theories have their strengths and a solid science background includes understanding a topic with knowledge from more than one angle or theory. Otherwise one's thinking risks being religious not scientific.

[mharratsc]

Exactly. In this venue, he is most assuredly a religious zealot. :\

[davesmith_au]

What's more surprising though, is that he's just 'outed' himself again! He has changed his username from ScienceApologist to Joshua P Schroeder! Seems he can't make up his mind. He first outed himself a couple of years ago, then suddenly set about erasing most references to his IRL identity citing that he was being threatened or some such. Now he's gone and done a 180 degree turn. Go figure...

Perhaps he's been buffing up at the gym...

ScienceApologist aka Joshua P Schroeder

Joshua-schroeder_sml.jpg (20.64 KiB) Viewed 36568 times

Perhaps not.

Cheers, Dave.

[mharratsc]

Ok, I figured by now everyone was tired of hearing from me on the boards and I was going to shut up for a while, but this was too much:

Perhaps he's been buffing up at the gym...

I laughed until I hurt myself... o.O

[Grits]

I didn't want to start a new thread, so I thought I'd ask people reading this thread, is anyone interested in organizing a system we can use to collaboratively enforce the EU model on wikipedia? I'm thinking something along the lines of version-control systems used by software developers (SVN and the like). We might even set up a wiki just for rough drafts we intend to implant and support on wikipedia.

I realize many people reading this may not think they have the time for this sort of thing, but every minute spent would add up. Two people collaborating on wikipedia can get so much more done than just one. For starters, it's a way around the "three revert rule". When guardian admins want to enforce their view they need the support of other users for political and procedural reasons. The number of users each admin can call on readily is not inexhaustible. With concerted effort it can be overcome. With a well-designed system of collaboration this problem of time constraint of users can also be overcome by focusing attention only where it's needed.

I'm not talking about exploiting the "mob rule" aspect to wikipedia, but more along the lines of harmonizing our efforts to get this information out. The power of harmonics can not be overstated. The structure we use should be flat and transparent, not authoritarian. Users of the system will only act voluntarily and only in support of their own understanding of the material, not simply march in lockstep with other "members" (users).

I can't say I can fully illustrate what such a system would look like, but conceptually the idea seems sound. If anyone is interested, contact me privately or in this thread.

[Phorce]

My suggestion - why not use http://citizendium.org which has a different approach that should allow better handling of controversial topics ? In my opinion WP has failed for the moment in it's handling of controversy. I tried the approach you suggest with Alternative (CAM) medicine but even with the WP procedures I quickly hit a stone wall. Editors camp on some pages and even legit references are quickly removed.

[Grits]

Editors camp on some pages and even legit references are quickly removed.

That's kind of my point, actually, that we should organize to change wikipedia. It can't be denied that it's always at the top of Google searches, why not exploit that to further the dissemination of this knowledge?

[Phorce]

Yes, but see my WP user page ...

Wikipedia was created to con us into thinking that information is only exchanged through printed or transmitted words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJBarney24

WP to me appears to be another corrupt power equation intended to lock people into a standoff with perceived gatekeepers of knowledge. A problem WP was supposed to solve. But WP has failed in this respect. It took me a while to see the light (BTW it's still good for non-controversial articles). A more intelligent approach would be to use Citizendium and of course the other wiki's devoted to plasma cosmology like http://www.plasma-universe.com

How much do Google/WP really inform people, especially from a global perspective ? Results at the top of Google pages are somewhat of a marketing illusion (clever marketing by Google). Look at other search engines like http://worldwidescience.org/ or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ that contain many times the information that can be purely extracted through Google. Look at your local University library or areas of the world that are not held back by the sort Anglo-American cabal that likes to think it's "the mainstream". Russian, Indian, Chinese and a hundred other sources of Scientific research make up the majority of EU/Plasma and related Science and research. WP is a sort of rabbit in the headlights effect created by the big business alliance between Google and other "do no evil" internet entities.

[davesmith_au]

My suggestion - why not use http://citizendium.org

Whilst there are other well-founded resources to replace Wikipedia, that does not negate the main problems with it. Wikipedia is where a vast number of the younger set get their information from. They shouldn't rely on it, but they do. Wikipedia features high in the search engine results of the most popular engine, Google. Wikipedia has been more or less taken over by zealots.

And the latest on my "pigwrestling" page? Schroeder tried to have it "speedy deleted", on the (false) grounds that it was an "attack page". He did this on Christmas day! An admin thought (correctly) it was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion, but then nominated it as "Miscellaney for Deletion" which allows a seven day discussion and for editors to give their opinion on whether or not to have the page deleted. So they still probably thought they could have it done and dusted between Christmas and the new year, without any 'opposition'. I'm sure Schroeder thought I'd be "on holiday".

I threw a spanner into the works by being the first to nominate it for "keep" and showing that in fact there were no valid reasons given in the nomination to delete a page. I demanded to be shown where it violates any policy, and so "Beeblebrox" (the admin who nominated it for deletion) has, in an ad hoc fashion, 'found' two policies he says it violates. Proper reading of the policies concerned, within their context, clearly shows they are invalid as reasons to delete my page, as I have argued.

Incidentally, I have offered to rename the page or at least discuss the issue on the 'talk page' (which is supposed to happen before nominating a user's page for deletion) but to date no-one has even attempted dialogue with me there. What a fiasco!

Cheers, Dave.

[davesmith_au]

For those who have not got the stomach to go to Wikipedia, here's what has happened so far:

First, on Christmas day, Schroeder attempts to have my page "speedy deleted" on the (false) grounds that it is an 'attack page'.

Worth noting here that, when considering pages in an editor's userspace (the "pigwrestling" page is in my userspace) if another editor feels either the content or the name of the page is inappropriate, the first thing they should do is open dialogue with the editor concerned. This did not happen. Secondly, the admin who then nominated my page for MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) should have done likewise, BEFORE taking the MfD action. This did not happen.

Admin Beeblebrox denies the speedy delete, but then nominates the page for MfD using the most pathetic argument I have yet seen, and not identifying any policy breach. Here's what's happened with that so far.

The nomination by user 'Beeblebrox':

Some sort of collection of "evidence" that does not seem to have ever led to any action. User who created it went inactive 8 months ago. See their userpage for the meaning of "pig wrestling." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My (first) response:

Strong Keep There appears to be no breach of any rule or guideline, and none is cited in the nomination to delete. The fact that I have not edited for some time does not mean I have left or have lost all interest in editing Wikipedia. Unless the nominator can provide reasons for the deletion, I suggest they use their time on Wikipedia more constructively and seek to delete pages which break some rule. Davesmith au (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox responds to me:

I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination. If you'd like to see a policy WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination. For the sake of transparency, I came across this only because another user nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page, which I declined to do, opting instead for a full deletion debate. Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User 'Collect' adds a 'keep' statement:

Keep If the argument is that it is an attack page - it does not seem to actually attack anyone in any sort of organized manner. If the argument is that it is useless - that is not actually an argument for deletion in userspace. And for an inactive user to appear here implies they are not quite as inactive as was thought - making that argument moot. Absent any strong argument to delete - the default is keep. Collect (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox responds to Collect:

You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:
"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."
(emphasis added) I thinks it's pretty clear that this would apply to this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect responds to Beeblebrox:

Which would apply if the author made noises that it was evidence to be used because otherwise the material might be seen to be attacking someone. Where no one is attacked, that section does not apply, and there is no requiremnet that all userspace pages which mention other editors be used as "evidence" anywhere. Collect (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox then takes what is clearly a tongue-in-cheek metaphor, and attempts to make it literal:

From Dave's user page, here is an explanation of what this is supposed to be:

Before coming here, I was offered some really good advice -

"Don't wrestle with a pig - you'll both get covered in crap but the pig will enjoy it".

My hope is that I will actually be able to engage the pigs in civil and constructive dialogue. I am a pathological optimist.

Having said that, if the dialogue attempt fails, you plant both your feet firmly on the solid foundations of integrity and truth, and give their gonads a firm but fair squeeze. They'll usually run off, squeeling as they go, flinging more crap on themselves than anyone else - it's often a thankless task, but hey, somebody has to do it.

So, his own words establish that he is using this page to identify users that he feels are pigs covered in their own excrement, who enjoy being covered in their own excrement, and whose testicles should be injured. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect pulls him up on it:

Which means you are using both OR and SYNTH on a userspace page of all things! Alas - I look at what is on the page to be deleted and I do not research anything beyond what is physically present. Which is not sufficient to call for deletion. Actually what happens is now more people will see the page than ever would have otherwise. Seems a bit of a downer, that? Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox now says he has "demonstrated" what I mean, but seems to get caught up in his own explanation. I still cannot understand what he means by the statement below:

That's completely specious logic. I'll grant that at first the definition of "pig wrestling" being used was not obvious, but now that I have demonstrated what this user means the term to mean you try to wiki-lawyer that point with a content policy that is intended for articles not user pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I felt it was about time I chimed in again:

"I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination." No you did not. I see no reasoning whatever in the nomination.
"If you'd like to see a policy [as breaching policy is the only valid reason for deleting pages, that should have been a given] WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your [sic] right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination." Yes I am right and yes you should have referred to it in the nomination, but in fact it appears to be an ad hoc addition with your own words "will do quite nicely" indicating that perhaps it was not until asked for policy that you went and found some which you thought would suffice.
"Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement ..." ' I never "retired" from Wikipedia which I made quite clear in my "Strong Keep" statement. Your continued assertion does not make it so.
"... perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, ..." It is mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott, as stated clearly on the page.
"... assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates." It does not violate that policy as explained below.
"You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. [I missed nothing, I just don't see anything of relevance] "For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:" You are taking the passages out of context. They are preceded by TWO headings: "Excessive unrelated content" and "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing ". The material concerned is definitely encyclopedia related. Furthermore, I have not attacked any editor. Your further remarks which Collect has established the inappropriateness of, I find fallacious and mischievous. I'll thank you not to take my words and make up your own mind as to what they mean. Any issue with the title of the page could and should have been taken up on my talk page or the page's talk page, as per my request there.
I find this whole episode (Joshua P. Schroeder (jps) first attempting a speedy delete, followed by Beeblebrox nominating my personal notes for deletion without displaying any policy breach), to be distasteful and a waste of administrative time as the page concerned is neither an attack page nor does it violate any policy.Davesmith au (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox then has another go at taking a metaphor literally:

If that is the case I'm sure a consensus will be reached to keep it. I find the concept of identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged rather offensive and decidedly unhelpful, but if the community disagrees with me your "personal notes" will be kept. (I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Me again:

As I have demonstrated that you failed to identify any policy violation in your nomination, and since failed to "find" a policy which my page violates, the MfD is invalid, so a "Keep" decision is the only responsible outcome.
"(I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation)" As your nomination states that I "went inactive about 8 months ago", it is relevant to the conversation. However I have already shown that I am not "retired" so that point is moot, not to mention irrelevant to the issue of whether a page should be deleted.
I find it interesting that Schroeder chose Christmas day to attempt a speedy deletion, perhaps hoping it would be done before I noticed it.
I find it interesting that he chose to call it an "attack page" without showing where any such attack has occurred.
I find it interesting that you also used the "attack page" excuse without showing any attack, and that now that that has failed miserably you seem to be arguing about about me allegedly "identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged" which I have not done. You will notice I refer to myself on the said page, along with other contributors who I would not categorize in the way you seem to be. I have simply collated ALL (at the time) talk page comments related to the biography of David Talbott, without singling out any individuals. The material is clearly encyclopedia related, and does not violate any policies. Should you take issue with the naming of the page, I have already mentioned such issues should be discussed on my talk page or on the page's talk page, which as an admin you should already be aware.Davesmith au (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Schroeder then adds in his two cents worth, violating several of Wikipedia's policies as he does so:

Declining the speedy was a bad move. Dave Smith is a perfectly awful character who revels in attacking Wikipedians on and off site. He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks. But, now you've given him a forum and we'll go round-and-round discussing this allowing him to continue to spew his filth. Congrats. jps (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that he links to my post near the top of this forum page with the words "He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks."

I respond:

Declining the speedy was the only acceptable move, as there has not been an attack of any kind identified. Nominating the page for MfD was the bad move, as the page violates no policies and as such the nomination is a waste of everyone's time. I am not a "perfectly awful character". I do not "revel in attacking Wikipedians" either on or off the site. Show me an instance of an on-site attack, and where I have reveled in same. As for what's off-site, I am within my rights to post whatever I please (within the forum's rules) on the Thunderbolts forum which those here would likely never have seen save your own linking to it (congrats!). It is not an attack but a factual account of the past and was not linked FROM Wikipedia until your actions above. Please show me where I have "spewed" my "filth" (on Wikipedia) and I'll gladly wipe up the mess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesmith au (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox then says Schroeder and I have been fighting off-site, yet Schroeder has not contributed to the thread concerned, nor to our forum for what seems like a good year or two (but I'm too lazy to go look it up). He then invokes another policy which again does not pertain to this situation!

I see I am not the only one one who neglected to thoroughly explain themselves from the outset. You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia. Delightful. And we now see that you are in fct using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting. Therefore you can add WP:NOTHOST, which is policy, to the argument to delete this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I respond:

If you keep grasping at straws, all you'll end up with is a hand full of straw. My page has been in place for over a year. The link Schroeder posted here has been on the Thunderbolts forum for one month. The page is, as I have already explained, mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott. As I have an ongoing interest in the said biography, I am entitled to keep any notes relating to it in my user space. I have a medical condition which affects my ability to recall information I may need at a later date, and so I have opted to post it to my user page. As it all relates to the encyclopedia, I am within my rights.
"You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia." Please provide proof of this claim or retract it.
"And we now see that you are in fact using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting." As already stated, and as is obvious by the page's content, it is clearly "related to Wikipedia". That I have found reason to link to it from off-site is of no consequence in the argument of whether or not to delete the page. Please desist from your attempts to obfuscate the issue. Schroeder's attempt at speedy deletion failed, and now you seem to be making up the argument as you go along, instead of having made a clear and concise statement in your nomination. The material in question does not take the form of a "blog, webspace provider or social networking site" and as such your claim that it somehow violates WP:NOTHOST is again, erroneous.Davesmith au (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Then another editor chimes in, invoking the same policy I have already refuted!

Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC and per the forum link provided by jps. This page does not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I respond yet again *yawn*:

At the risk of repeating myself, the argument that it somehow violates WP:UP#POLEMIC is invalid, when the policy quoted clearly states that it relates to material not related to the encyclopedia. As to the forum link provided by jps, that is totally irrelevant. No-one here would have been aware of it had he not drawn attention to it himself. If you suggested "Delete" and quoted some policy I have violated, that would be different. Simply reiterating invalid material does not a sound argument make.Davesmith au (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems the zealots don't have to abide by the very policies they expect others to follow! And people think somehow a concerted effort is going to make things better. Who has the time? Who could be bothered?

I NEED coffee...

Cheers, Dave.

[Phorce]

I still think ... why bother ? These bullies are very well skilled at pulling people into unproductive power conflicts for years. Why not ignore them. Go around them. They thrive on exposure.

[Siggy_G]

I found the following under the Talk page of the Plasma Cosmology article on Wikipedia. Is this really the case? What about other previous acts of him?

I have therefore reverted the edits. I also think 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 are sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have reported them as such, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see ScienceApologist is not a blocked user and the SPI appears to have concluded similarly. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist aka Joshua P. Schroeder aka VanishedUser314159 is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. The IPs 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 were found to be sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have been blocked for a year. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans for a log of all ScienceApologist's blocks and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist for details of this case. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[Phorce]

Ya know, bans, page deletions, and on and on ? So what ? If you want to edit for Wikipedia then you people are really going to have to drop this "we must get the truth in Wikipedia" stance. It is simply not what it is set up to do. In fact if it were easy to edit in "the Truth" then Wikipedia would have died years ago.

Yes, its difficult. I fall for all the same tricks myself. I get worked up and on my high horse. But at the end of the day calm editing of Wikipedia without personal attacks (and without the "I am a victim" attitude I might add) can be very enlightening and eventually leads to the compromise that is the case with many of the better articles on WP.

The classic core at the heart of all of this is this ...

In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Sometimes these are after one particular individual and sometimes they're just after anyone who will take the bait. Don't take the bait.

See the full Wikipedia essay here.

This is quoted in my Wikiproject Proposal. And I'll say it again. I am not proposing this group to make sure the "truth" of Electric Universe is edited into WP ! It is simply intended potentially as a guide to the wonderful and wacky world of WP through mutual support for interested editors. Editors SOURCING the rich world of EU scientific citations IN ORDER to improve WP articles IN GENERAL.

If EU "believers" exclusively intend to use WP to PROMOTE their point of view then I will gladly retract my WP Project because I will not support such shameless promotional tactics.

So is anyone going to get this or were you all struck by lightning ?