SSブログ

the AfD for "Noometry",

I discovered my way into this by means ofwhich highlighted this string at WikiProject Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC) 우리카지노

I made Noogenesis into a divert yet was returned; in all honesty, it's a trash article and something should be done about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's essentially that "Omega Point" drivel once more. The idiotic and silly teleological contention redivivus as immense charm. What a wreck! Different subjects referenced in that conversation I have not taken a gander at however are without a doubt magnets for edge of this sort. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Noometry" was erased however different articles actually need consideration. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Anybody want to take the altering blade to noogenesis? There's potentially some material of chronicled interest close to the start, however all that begins with "Ongoing turns of events" peruses like Ray Kurzweil machine-converted into Russian and back and wikified affected by an honorable bong hit or three. XOR'easter (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for erasure/Noogenesis. jps (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A debt of gratitude is in order for posting that; I need to for the most part step away for some time (no an ideal opportunity for content work, no energy for in the background debates), however I left a !vote. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for erasure/Information nature jps (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for erasure/Alexei Eryomin jps (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Plate hypothesis (volcanism)

There has been a broad conversation about the Plate hypothesis (volcanism) article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism). "Plate Theory" appears to a minority see in scholarly geography that mantle tufts aren't genuine marvel and that all volcanism, even those away from plate limits can be totally clarified by plate tectonics. The primary advertiser of this hypothesis has all the earmarks of being Professor Gillian Foulger of Durham University, a regarded scholastic. For something as perplexing as mantle geophysics its hard to get a feeling of how genuinely this thought is taken by the more extensive scholarly local area (her book on the subject "Plates versus crest: a topographical debate" from 2011 has been refered to more than 200 times). The way things are the article seems like to me (and numerous different donors at WikiProject Geology) to be a WP:POVFORK that ought to be specifically converged into another article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, the other significant advertiser of "plate hypothesis", the currently expired Don L. Anderson has for the most part been added to by the SPA Annehand, and incorporates huge segments of uncited text and puffery, depicting his course readings as "viewed by partners as convincing combinations of the inceptions of the Earth and its inward operations by one of the incredible geophysical specialists within recent memory." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The designer of the Plate hypothesis (volcanism) article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · logs · alter channel log · block log) has additionally broadly revised around twelve diverse Hotspot (geography) related articles, attempting to project question about the mantle tuft hypothesis and advancing the "plate hypothesis", see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, a significant number of them refer to "mantleplumes.org (the fundamental site for the "plate hypothesis" allies, run by Foulger, which gazes directly out of a mid 2000's geocities page) and the "Plates versus crest: a geographical debate" book by Foulger. I'm uncertain that this is in-accordance with our periphery and NPOV approaches. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 카지노사이트

Kent G. Move has shown that Foulger herself is likely behind this exertion, as she seemed to face him when he made the Intraplate volcanism article from combining the Plate hypothesis (volcanism) article, making him erase the new aritlce. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As an obvious WP:POV push, I have returned their alters where they embed bogus equilibrium for their pet hypothesis (aside from this, which looks complex; I'll let topography editors handle that). This positively wouldn't be the first occasion when that a scientist comes to Wikipedia to embed their minority see as truth. Intersection - talk-20:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Better believe it, that definite looks POV to me. Given that it isn't the generally acknowledged clarification for volcanism, its absence of any analysis, or even of the presence of different models, is glaring, similar to the webpage spam contained inside the article - "Since 2003, conversation and advancement of the plate hypothesis has been cultivated by the Durham University(UK)- facilitated site mantleplumes.org, a significant global discussion with commitments from geoscientists working in a wide assortment of claims to fame." This has each appearance of a purposeful exertion to advance a pet hypothesis. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The more I search on researcher, the more I believe that WP:MEDRS like rules ought to apply to this subject. It's exceptionally simple to bring up many examinations supporting "plate hypothesis" by similar restricted gathering of allies, yet there are effectively a large number of papers supporting the presence of mantle tufts. This Earth Magazine article is a fascinating outline of the set of experiences behind mantle crest and the contention encompassing them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There is the WP:SCIRS page, however it's just a paper. Maybe it ought to develop into something else.
nice!(0)  コメント(0) 

nice! 0

コメント 0

コメントを書く

お名前:
URL:
コメント:
画像認証:
下の画像に表示されている文字を入力してください。

この広告は前回の更新から一定期間経過したブログに表示されています。更新すると自動で解除されます。