Talk:Pattern Recognition in Physics

We are not Ouadfeul mouthpiece
We are not here to re-trumpet Ouadfeul's complaints about how he-was-so-terribly-mistreated-and-see-how-those-climate-change-guys-gang-up-on-us-skeptics. If third party reliable sources comment on the issue, we can cover it. If not and its just more self-serving self published claims that we do not use or blabber from the blog-o-sphere, then we don't cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this assessment. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As do I. I'd like to add that Jo Nova and Tallbloke aren't reliable sources and therefore shouldn't be used to justify inclusion of this stuff either., will you please discuss your edits instead of edit-warring incessantly, unless you want to get blocked? Jinkinson   talk to me  16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We are here to tell the full story about this journal, not just part of it to favor somebody. The original post was very unbalanced in favor of Copernicus arguments for closing the journal. I added the official reply from Morner which has been published. The opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall. You are censoring for political reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intuitive2000 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No your premise is incorrect. see WP:VALID and WP:SPS. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, to demonstrate that my premise is incorrect you need to do more than just stating "your premise is incorrect." It is evident that you do not want to write the full story by censoring the opinion of Morner and the opinions of other people that have studied the issue and concluded that Copernicus actions were a case of scientific censorship. If you think that their opinions and conclusions are wrong, add contrary arguments for other people that have properly analyzed the issue. You should not solve the issue by deleting what does not fit your prejudices to mislead the public. (Intuitive2000 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
 * I did more than say "your premise is incorrect".
 * I said "your premise is incorrect" and then pointed you to our policies that show how your premise is incorrect. Please read them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I read the pages you pointed. They do not apply against my action but against your actions. In a controversy there are always two bells to be hear. You cannot silent one bell by deleting what does not fit your opinion. Are you claiming that Morner opinion are not as valid as Rasmussen's one? Are you claiming that the opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall? (Intuitive2000 (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
 * you obviously did not read them very well if you still think we are here "to ring both bells". and we are particularly not here to parrot one party's self published rants nor to reprint the dregs of the blogosphere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, you are demonstrating intolerance against opinions and persons that you personal oppose. As I said we are here to provide a fair analysis of the issue. Both bells must be present in this issue. I did not add "rants" but opinions that were formed by the authors after a careful analysis of the facts. You are presuming to know more on this issue than Morner himself! Provide evidences that the things are in the way you think they are. The article needs to be balanced. Search and add contrary arguments if you have them. Do not delete what does not fit your prejudices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intuitive2000 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am showing an intolerance of sources that do not meet the Wikipedia requirements for sources and presentation of content that is in violation of our policies. The article is balanced when it represents what the mainstream third parties have to say about the topic. It is unbalanced when it gives inappropriate space to self published self serving claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I am not violating any policy, you are violating them by applying inappropriate censorship. The article is not finished yet. It can be improved. You cannot add third party opinions without adding the two-bell opinions first. You presented the opinion of Copernicus. This requires the addition of Morner's official opinion that was published in a scientific journal (which you want to censor!). After Copernicus and Morner opinions the third party opinions come. I added a set of opinions from some authors that have investigated the issue in details. What you need to do is to search contrary opinions and add them to the article. Instead of doing your homework you are censoring the opinions of Morner and those of the other people simply because you do not have any contrary opinion to support your prejudices. Does it make sense to you? As I said: "search contrary opinions and add them to the article" (Intuitive2000 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
 * You are editing Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. You need to follow Wikipedia rules. There is no "You cannot add third party opinions without adding the two-bell opinions first" in Wikipedia rules. If you refuse to acknowledge that and the rest of the Wikipedia rules which you have been (repeatedly) guided to, you will not be editing Wikipedia for long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not violating any Wikipedia rules. There are an infinity of articles on Wikipedia where the two bells are properly presented. You are applying censorship against ideas and persons that you personally oppose, which is contrary Wikipedia rules. Let the article to develop properly. Add the content that you think appropriate without deleting just for prejudice and learn to be tolerant of others' contribution (Intuitive2000 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
 * You are violating the rules. You have violated the WP:3RR rule. You are violating the WP:UNDUE rule giving excessive weight to Ouadfeul's self published claims. You have violated the rule of WP:RS by including content from non reliable blogs. You have violated the rule of WP:CONSENSUS when you have reinserted content that only you support against the evaluation of every other experienced editor that has commented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Intuitive, you're heading full speed towards a block with your editing here. You will be blocked for your edit warring earlier today, as soon as an admin has had time to look at the 3RR report that I filed. That block will most likely not permanent, but if you keep flouting WP's guidelines and policies, most notable by insisting on including material from unreliable sources, such a block could easily be extended or reimposed. The Red Pen has very patiently tried to explain WP's policies to you and you would do well to start listening what people here are telling you. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that I have violated the rules. You are doing that by deleting continuously the post to prevent a fair presentation of the issues. The WP:3RR rule was first violated by you who continuously deleted entire paragraphs that I wrote without any justifications. I am not violating the WP:UNDUE rule. You are doing it by continuously censoring the rebuttals of Copernicus's argument written and published by Morner. Therefore you are not fairly representing all significant viewpoints but want to promote only one viewpoint ofthe story. I have not violated the rule of WP:RS because the article included already content from non reliable blogs such as by Castelvecchi, Stokstad and Beall. I did not violated the rule of WP:CONSENSUS because I did not write my own comments but I have simply referenced comments from other sources that were properly referenced. (Intuitive2000 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Your version of reality is pretty skewed. Your first claim for example " you who continuously deleted entire paragraphs that I wrote without any justifications" The content was removed WITH policy based justification for example: "non notable blogger", "random blogosmoke", "undue weight to invovled parties self serving claims"; "take it to talk. this much space to their self serving POV push is UNDUE". The rationale was repeated on your talk page . and further, explained ad nauseum here on this talk page. When your beginning premise is so far from reality it is hard to believe that there is any point in attempting further discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pattern Recognition in Physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314101158/http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/ to http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222133717/http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-opening, 2014?
I removed


 * In March 2014 Ouadfeul reopened the journal, "run on private founding" [sic]. 

Because although Q may have said this, I don't think it really happened William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)