HalHuxley says: Sure. I'm happy to make my case. How do I do this in "talk"? (Apologies, I've never visited this site before, and have very little experience of editing wiki pages.)— Unsigned, by: HalHuxley / talk / contribs
- Well, for one, please make sure you indent your comments by adding :'s before your comments, and also sign your posts with --~~~~ or the signature button on the bar--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 'sLike this? (Just testing.)HalHuxley (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 'Okay, I think I get it.
- Okay, many thanks. So my case is simply this: I have only recently come across IFLS, but it seems to me to be in the business of responsible science journalism. I do not see that any of the accusations/criticisms made against IFLS on this RationalWiki page are in any way substantiated by the actual content of the IFLS site, and no examples have been provided. Is IFLS in the business of promoting pseudoscience? If so, examples could be given, right? I am happy to be shown to be wrong about this (e.g. if someone can point me to the pseudoscience they are reputedly in the business of promoting), but at the moment I just do not see that what has been written about IFLS is even remotely accurate.HalHuxley (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, fine by me. I'd be very grateful, however, if you or someone else could advise me on how I might initiate a discussion about the content of the "I Fucking Love Science" page on this site, so that we can agree to remove the inaccurate and defamatory content. It seems that this libel has been published on this site since July 2014, and that it was written by someone posting as "NerdyWizard". I have tried to contact this poster, who has not responded, and it does not look likely that they will do so (not least because, were they to address it, they would have to admit that they were lying: the poster even admitted in their summary of their edit that they were deliberately adding "denigratory" content).
So the issue is really very simple: since the claims are demonstrably false, and since nobody is prepared to attempt to substantiate them, isn't it high time they were removed?HalHuxley (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- your prood of their falseness is lacking, as is your "I left a message and they didn't instantly reply" method of discussion. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The onus is on *me* to prove that these wholly unsubstantiated accusations are false? Really? You don't see the problem with that suggestion?
- Imagine, then, that someone publishes an exposé about you on the internet claiming that you are a serial child abuser. They do not cite any evidence, nor try to substantiate their accusation in any way, but nevertheless clearly state that you abuse children, and that you've been doing it more and more recently. What do you do? You protest your innocence ask them to take it down, right?
- But what if they respond by saying "No, we won't take it down, until you *prove* that these claims are false!". Do you see the problem here?
- But okay, since you seem confident that evidence will be forthcoming to vindicate the claims that IFLS is "seriously skewed to the pseudoscientific", that it "has gradually drifted from being somewhat interesting ... to being a lot of clickbait cute/gross animal photos", and that it "has gradually followed a general trend of decline in its quality", I look forward to seeing someone come forward and attempt to substantiate them below.HalHuxley (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't just delete talkpage comments. Especially not other people's comments. If a discussion thread has died down, though, you're free to archive it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)