User talk:Cadedral

January 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Paleontology. --Mr Fink (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't respond well to threats. It seems only your POV should/may be accepted and if one dares to have a different opinion one should be blocked...Cadedral (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, cupcake, you weren't threatened, you were warned. Second, "daring to have different opinions" is not grounds for having your editing privileges revoked: abusing multiple accounts, and repeatedly inserting false information in order to make blatantly false accusations are grounds for blocking.--50.53.83.31 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you are a sockpuppet or WP:MEATPUPPET, Wikipedia doesn't need blatant POV pushing on that page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet, or a marionet (as Apokryltaros cslled me). It's also no case of blatant POV pushing as we didn't change anything in the original text and only added a reference to the controversy fueled by documented cases of scientific fraud. If there's any blatant POV pushing done than it's the constant deleting of references to the fraud and the controversy it fuels. We can of course close our eyes and pretend it didn't/doesn't happen but that doesn't change the fact that it does remain a black page in the history of Paleontology. It's as if we wouldn't mention the Piltdown man hoax on the timeline of Paleontology (it is BTW), so why this refusal to acknowledge that the other frauds did happen? Cadedral (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand how the statement "The atheist race to fame and fortune is cited in many texts as motivation for these Paleontologists to spend time and resources perpetuating the dinosaur myth" is blatant POV-pushing, Wikipedia is not the project for you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The history and even the essence of science is that it consist of theory and countertheory thus leading to these - antithese - synthese dialectics. Just as nowadays we have people claiming that black holes don't exist (Laura Mersini-Houghton) or that the speed of light is not a limit (ao. João Magueijo). Is it allowed to mention these things or would you also consider it to be POV pushing. The word 'myth' is used in a lot contexts and, for instance, Fred Hoyle considered the Big Bang to be a 'myth'. Are you going to call this POV pushing or just part of how science works? Cadedral (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh great! It's perfectly acceptable for people to address me as "cupcake" with apparently no reaction of your part. Does that mean that you will delete all references to other scientific countertheories as well and will continue, for example, Laura Mersini of POV pushing? I noticed as well that you don't reply to the arguments I've given but only continue to accuse me of blatant POV pushing. Need I conclude that you deny that there were cases of scientific fraud? Is this what Wikipedia has become: a site where dissident thinking is punished by banning people? Cadedral (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a question, who are the "we" that you keep referring too?

I stand accused of being someone's sockpuppet, hence "we". You will also notice that in the article Apokryltaros reomoved all editing done by other users, hence again "we". Hope this clarifies itCadedral (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is the two instances that were inserted into the article Paleontology, are not evidence of purposeful fraud on the part of paleontologists. Nat Geo ran an article on a fossil before the fossil had been described, and the describing authors told them not to due to problems with the chimaera specimen.  Bronotosaurus isn't even that dubious, merely the result of a second Apatosaurus skeleton being described as a different genus, and the mistake being noted and corrected by the taxonomists. They are are indicators of wide spread corruption as the paragraph clearly was trying to imply.-- Kev  min  § 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no implication of wide spread corruption, on the contrary the title of the paragraph is "Controversy" and focuses on the effects of the cases described. You must agree that they're not the only ones: other cases include the Protsch fraud, the Haeckel fraud or the Himalayan fossils fraud. There are unfortunately still examples around and I think the article isn't complete without a reference to it.Cadedral (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haeckel and Himalayan fossils are not frauds at all, what reliable sources (not blogs) do you have that say they are? And the problem is your sources were not reliable ones, but one that show clear bias, rather then neutral coverage. Oh and please start using indents to keep the thread flow.-- Kev  min  § 01:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Presenting fossils imported form other countries as Himalayan fossils is fraud, Making fake drawings as Haeckel did is fraud. And calling the archeoraptor a simple chimaera specimen is ignoring the fact that it was a constructed fossil, made for monetary profit. It also ignores that some of the people involved in the case (after buying and illegally importing the fossil) didn't inform anyone of their reservations till after the unveiling of the skeleton.Cadedral (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Citations....  What Himalayan fossils?   Haekel did not make fake drawings, the only group to claim such are biblical literalists.  It was a simple chimera, constructed by a NON-paleontologist, a farmer, to make it more likely to sell.  The researchers told Nat Geo of their reservations as soon as they had them.  The most saliant point is that it was all done in the public record, where everyone saw, so there was nothing duplicitous on the part of the researchers.-- Kev  min  § 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2013/december/pp722-723.pdf I find it strange that you first say that there was no Himalayan fossils fraud only to admit afterwards that you don't know about the fraud. Haeckel's drawings are still today considered as fake and they are even mentioned as such in Wikipedia...[]. The archaeoraptor was not a simple chimaera but a prime example of the reasons behind the controversy in the field of Paleontology: going from the endless supply of Trilobites sold to unsuspecting tourists to the big finds (and the huge sums paid for them). What happened in the archaeoraptor case only became part of the public record after it was revealed that it was a fake and the scientists involved yielded to pressure and didn't share their reservations and were even looking to publish in Nature.Cadedral (talk)


 * Not sure what you mean the sock/meatpuppet accusations "didn't hold." When a new user appears and begins edit-warring on the side of another recently created user who's only purpose is to insert blatant anti-science POV, we call that a WP:DUCK. Your thesis that "a farmer makes a fake fossil which is quickly debunked by scientists is evidence of vast fraud in paleontology" is patently ridiculous. I'm not sure why Kevmin is bothering to discuss this with you, since your mind appears to be already made on the topic. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you even bothered to look at my IP address? You probably did, as you've succeeded in blocking all users of the Telenet network in Belgium, so no sockpuppet. Have I provided you with enough references and arguments of my own in this discussion? I think I did, so no meatpuppet. Did I provide evidence and references of fraud and hoaxes in the field of Paleontology? I think I did and you only avoid reviewing them: I see no rebuttal of the Protsch fraud, Wikipedia itself talks about the Haeckel fraud, I gave you references of the Himalayan fossils fraud and the archaeoraptor was not quickly debunked as Currie didn't make his reservations known till after the fraud was uncovered, making it a perfect example of how scientists yield to pressure of museum owners. Are they evidence of a vast fraud? No. Are they evidence of fraud? Of course they are. But your mind appears to be already made up on the topic as you don't even want to acknowledge that there were cases of fraud and it's easier to shoot at the messenger.Cadedral (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your IP address. I could remote desktop to any number of cities in the world where my company has an office and pretend to be different people. I could also collude with friends on the "Pateontology is a Lie!" forums and coordinate edits to Wikipedia; that sort of thing happens all the time. The larger problem is what I've already addressed; we don't need poorly sourced POV pushing and WP:SYNTH in that article. Since this has obviously become a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I will move on to more productive uses of my time. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't care about my IP address then why have you blocked it? I have even offered you to give the URL of my Linkedin profile (or do you think I quickly made that one for the purpose of this discussion?) And poorly sourced? I gave you several references but you seem to ignore them. It easy to say you can use your time more productively as it allows you not to address any of the cases that I presented you. Do you dare to state that there were no cases of fraud and that I invented the documented frauds? That would be pushing an anti-science POV! We can than state to the world that according to Wikipedia and its' admins that all fossils that have been and still are to be found should be accepted as real from now on as there never were and never will be cases of fraud.Cadedral (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)