|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:Orangina1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Orangina1!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Greetings, Orangina1, and thank you for joining our wiki of artificial pens! I hope you enjoy your time here. 
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please discuss your issues with the Piero Calvi-Parisetti article on the article's talk page and also confirm what your connection with Mr Calvi-Parisetti is, if any? Empty legal threats won't be appreciated. Thanks. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have many issues with it. 90% of the article is good. I am not defending his pseudoscience or psychic fringe claims just concerned about ad-hominem which lowers the standards of this wiki. See my comments on Anthony Peake's talk page I oppose pseudoscience and most of your articles do not contain libel so I only have issue with a few. I am a fan of this website and debunking pseudoscience. The problem is that on several of your articles you have used libelous terms like "deliberately dishonest", "fraud" or "crank" which are un-referenced, you seem to be attacking the individual with nasty words instead of attacking the pseudoscience. I have read Calvi-Parisetti's book and yes it beyond ridiculous in what it claims but it's clear he honestly believes in what he writes about and I have no problem with people exposing his pseudoscience but if anything should be attacked it should be his work not the man himself. I am not associated with Parisetti infact I have debated him before, I am no fan of his work but if you keep the words dishonest or attack him with nasty words instead of focusing on his research, he likely will sue this website because he has quite a temper over that sort of thing and it's nothing more than ad-hominem. I was trying to help that was all. Orangina1 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the claim that Calvi-Parisetti is dishonest, which isn't really backed up with anything, but "crank" is a statement of opinion based on the fact that he believes in mediums, ectoplasm, etc. It's used in a lot of our (and other writers') coverage of fringe beliefs, is not libellous, and isn't an "ad hominem" since we're referring to these people as cranks in the context of their fringe beliefs, not as a personal attack in some other context. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 08:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the claim that Calvi-Parisetti is dishonest, which isn't really backed up with anything, but "crank" is a statement of opinion based on the fact that he believes in mediums, ectoplasm, etc. It's used in a lot of our (and other writers') coverage of fringe beliefs, is not libellous, and isn't an "ad hominem" since we're referring to these people as cranks in the context of their fringe beliefs, not as a personal attack in some other context. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- I don't have many issues with it. 90% of the article is good. I am not defending his pseudoscience or psychic fringe claims just concerned about ad-hominem which lowers the standards of this wiki. See my comments on Anthony Peake's talk page I oppose pseudoscience and most of your articles do not contain libel so I only have issue with a few. I am a fan of this website and debunking pseudoscience. The problem is that on several of your articles you have used libelous terms like "deliberately dishonest", "fraud" or "crank" which are un-referenced, you seem to be attacking the individual with nasty words instead of attacking the pseudoscience. I have read Calvi-Parisetti's book and yes it beyond ridiculous in what it claims but it's clear he honestly believes in what he writes about and I have no problem with people exposing his pseudoscience but if anything should be attacked it should be his work not the man himself. I am not associated with Parisetti infact I have debated him before, I am no fan of his work but if you keep the words dishonest or attack him with nasty words instead of focusing on his research, he likely will sue this website because he has quite a temper over that sort of thing and it's nothing more than ad-hominem. I was trying to help that was all. Orangina1 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)