Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep Vote count does not appear to display a two-thirds majority, and from reading the discussion there certainly does not appear to be a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Aetherometry
Registered users whose history began significantly before this article's creation:
 * Current Tally: Keep: 19, Delete: 27, Merge/Redirect: 0
 * Tally: Keep: 14, Delete: 12, Merge/Redirect: 0

Attempt to count by Dragons flight June 28, 2005 21:33 (UTC)


 * So, either way it's a majority against keep: "20 to 15 is 57% against on votes that don't count. whereas on the votes that count 13 vs 12 is 52% also against." Helicoid
 * True but our policies do not allow deletion based on a majority vote. We need consensus. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole. Delete. Natalinasmpf 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly change of vote (I'm not sure yet). It is our noble mission indeed for mankind to make sure such theories get a proper critique, such that this article may always be cited in opposition to this theory to prevent people from being duped into believing this stuff for once and for all. If it's that notable, then such a theory in danger of cheating people must be addressed with the proper truth that this doesn't go well with actual science. -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble mission... those restless children "at the head of the columns come to purify the future with the arrogance of youth. Nothing is as foolish as the righteousness of innocents With automatic weapons and a gospel of  truth" - Justin Sullivan


 * UPDATE: I will vote Keep for now, although I might change later. I think it will be best for mankind in general if the flaws and shortfalls of aetherometry are shown. -- Natalinasmpf 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's flaws and shortfalls by peers who know enough to understand the subject if they studied it. It is not imaginary flaws and shortfalls by anyone who dreams of getting them by osmosis. Is it not ticklish, though, that the votes to keep Aetherometry in its presently miserable state are coming from its enemies who admitted to have never heard of the subject?209.29.93.57 00:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, since you say you can't follow my comments if I split you paragraph, I am leaving your paragraph intact above and putting my comments down here.


 * Natalinasmpf: Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax.


 * FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff. Exempt from ordinary laws, or what? And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities".


 * Firstly, you address me wrong. How is it slanderous? From once glance, it looks very likely, considering how many violations with accepted quantum mechanics it has. I think many Wikipedians will be inclined to agree with me. I can call it a hoax if I want - at least I'm not making up some newfangled theory, presenting it as valid without peer review, asserting its truth, then trying to scam people out of donations. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Natalinasmpf: Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia,


 * FrankZappo: Wow, the professionalism of Wikipedia? This is the guy who calls others a "petit bourgeois"? Show me an ounce of professionalism in the current "discussion" of the Aetherometry entry.


 * Petit bourgeois was an eye for an eye remark. You should well see the context. Oh, citing hypocrisy (which I doubt it), is a logical fallacy.


 * Natalinasmpf: and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.


 * FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to refer to people's work as "snake oil" without any factual basis? And where does this "corporate" come from? Aetherometry now has a corporation? Wow! Who knew? - But doesn't that mean that it has hit the Mainstream and is worthy of inclusion in that Mainstay of Professionalism, the Wikipedia?


 * Looking at the company and "labs", the Correas has set up, it looks like those companies that goes around selling miracle pills, only now in the field of energy. How is slanderous? This is an encylopedia, I am accusing it of being snake oil. In contrast, I'm not making fraud, either. If its a corporation, it becomes commercial spam, not "hit the mainstream". There are plenty of corporations out there selling pseudoscience.


 * This is an example of a gratuitous slander by a person that sounds like an admin and states that this is an encyclopedia so he or she can freely accuse and without any evidence, by the way, the Correas or anyone else of selling miracle pills. In being gratuitous and free, the aggression itself is not to be construed as a fraud.  It is no proof that the administration of this Wikipedia is fraudulent. But is not proof sufficient that its claim to impartial knowledge is false? I thought that admins should stand back and let the 'people' who know and want to contribute get in. How could a good start entry have become so threatening to Wikipedia?209.29.93.57 00:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Natalinasmpf: Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever?


 * FrankZappo: I am sorry, this is only my <27654th edit, but already I know that red has nothing to do with a concept being empirical, it just means that nobody thought of including it in Wikipedia, or that the name in the link does not match the name in the Wikipedia entry. I noticed, for example, that "material body" does not seem to have an entry in the Wikipedia, and yet I think you would agree the concept is quite empirical.


 * No, when there's overwhelmingly a lot of red links, its not that "no one has thought of including it", it means its such overwhelmingly a neologism, the very theory of Aetherometry is not basing itself on "previous concepts", like it claims (from Tesla et al) - its fabricating its own. Most fundamental particles have already been included, if you want to theorise that some of these fundamental particles have a new property, link their name, and call it "massfree" and whatnot, go get a cyclotron, or tracers and show evidence of it - after all, neutrinos themselves were discovered to have mass by their oscillations. That is empirical. Coming up with new particles one hasn't verified and presenting it as truth isn't.


 * Natalinasmpf: Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole.


 * FrankZappo: Yup, I noticed this past Tuesday that the world started a descent into hell, and now I know why. FrankZappo 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a very dark view on things, but yes, this scientific super-answer needs to be deleted post-haste. User:Humblefool 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete total b.s. Anti-gravitons?  kinetons?  Come on. --Etacar11 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh I just wanted to comment, I'm not against the idea of anti-gravitons myself, but the article seems to accept the premise of them without peer review, and assertingly, and without the fact that *gasp*, that's only a hypothesis and an unresolved model, so hence... -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems like a notable pseudoscience with 4,680 google hits. Google doesn't say anything about relevance, just similarity. Kappa 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But only 53 hits in Google Groups, see my comment below. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. 4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think? Compare quantum teleportation, and its google hits of 118,000, which in itself is scientifically radical, but at least not a commercial hoax. And reduce that 4,680 hits for Aetherometry to 196 - most of it is just repetitive commercial spam, not actual scientific nor popular discussion. -- Natalinasmpf 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think?". No, in fact 100 google hits is plenty. Kappa 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, the Google count went up, it's now at 5100 hits! That's an almost 5% increase in notability, in only 4 days.  66.217.179.112 17:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)  Actually, it was me, I forgot to log on.  OldPatrick
 * Quantum teleportation is a bad analogy as that is a term used to describe a widely accepted and experimentally demonstrated process in quantum mechanics whereby the quantum state of one atom can be transferred to another over small but macroscopically significant distances. In that context, it is not at all radical.  Oh, and for the record, I suspect they are zealots (true believers of what they are saying) rather than hoaxers or commericial scam artists.  Dragons flight 01:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to hate myself for saying this, but rewrite. This is psuedoscience, quackery, and great number of other unflattering things, but unfortunately, I believe it is notable quackery.  The Correas and followers have, through determined effort, managed to insinuated their ideas into thousands of websites , and written multiple books, "research papers", and essays.  They really do have PhDs supporting their work (though a list of the fields of study of those PhDs might be entertaining).  Perhaps most importantly, this is not the first time I have encountered aetherometry.  If it is something I have heard of before by chance, then odds are it is sufficiently widespread to be notable (lord help us all).  That said, the version of the article that is ultimately kept needs serious NPOVing, in addition to stating the opinions of these believers, it needs to state the mainstream objections, and comments from critics such as .  Honestly, I rather hope this is deleted, but I can't really support that.  Okay, now that I feel icky, I'm going away.  Dragons flight 00:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscience. It says that a theory can be recognized as pseudoscience by these characteristics:


 * by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
 * by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
 * by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
 * by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
 * by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
 * by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
 * by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
 * by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
 * by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the violation, the more likely); or
 * by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.


 * Now, I've read everything that the Coreeas have published, and I have to confess that I cannot figure out which of these characteristics Aetherometry is claimed to possess. What exactly is the basis for you calling it pseudoscience?   I mean, you can call it anything you want, I am sure, but if you are trying to be truthful to boot, then what are your criteria?    66.217.179.112 17:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)  That was me too.  OldPatrick


 * And we're supposed to take you on your word? Just because they asserted a theory in a book doesn't make it correct. I don't see experimental evidence anywhere, other than claiming they have it (ie. I don't see reports where it was reproduced in say, a scientific journal, verifications et al), a scientific paper cited, (rather than just an advocacy website, ie. in pdf form, complete with verifiable addreses which one can contact), with page and line number cited...oh yes, it does violate Occam's razor. It has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review, as well. Mind you, I would have severely bashed Einstein as well had he tried to assert his theory of relativity as fact without submitting them to rigorous peer review first. But fortuately, he did. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, if Wikipedia simply does not want articles about scientific efforts that have not been published in mainstream journals, why not say so to begin with? As far as I can see, nobody ever defended Aetherometry by claiming it was accepted by the mainstream.  Why all this broohaha?  I suspect that if the original author had just been told to begin with, "Look, this has not been accepted by the mainstream, so Wikipedia is not a place for it", he or she would have withdrawn and nobody's time would have been wasted.  And no, you have no idea whether or not Aetherometry violates Occam's razor, because you have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain.  And the results have been available for peer review for at least 4 years now, so the statement "it has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review" is not accurate either.   OldPatrick 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That isn't the point. We're not even sure of these "scientific efforts" are notable. Wikipedia does not have to include articles about every single attempt to try to find some "free energy" source in the world. For example, Stephen Hawking has his entry on Hawking radiation existing because 1) it was notable 2) it is sent through peer review, even though its very controversial, and only 70% accepted by the mainstream (as a figure of speech). It may submit results for "peer review", but unless it suddenly accumulated enough review to verify it as evidence (like results reproduced over and over again, documented, and resubmitted), then its not "rigorous". "I have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain"? If you mean the original information here, yes I do, unless you want to be Helicoid and allege that "I haven't read the material". - but if you mean because the results haven't been published, then duly right, it shouldn't be here if its not going to be verified anyway. Unless you're Helicoid's sockpuppet? -- Natalinasmpf 19:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have not read the material. That's a fact.  Pretty obvious too.209.29.93.65 09:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You do not understand actual science. That's a fact, pretty obvious too, with your blind fanaticism to the subject, and the failure to cite actual sources, and your self-contradiction in numerous posts. -- Natalinasmpf 09:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As Natalinasmpf notes, only 196 unique Googles. Non-notable pseudoscience. Delete without prejudice against recreation iff it can be shown that this is a notable crank theory and the article is written or re-written to convey that idea. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  00:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Adams motor. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as Neologism: For no other reason, the term should remain as an article. Re-written, yes.  However deletion of an article, if only a concept, is truly UN- encyclopedic....   and perfectly UN- scientific.   This very discussion around VfD, should return to the "discussion" page right behind the word's article itself.  People who post a banner like this would be much more constructive to the effort of article editing and encyclopedia creation, if your words both Pro and Con were kept closer to the article itself.  Not in this far off corner, removed from healthy debate.  Everything said above has a real and undeleted place in Talk:Aetherometry.  Why not try it sometime, instead of effortless deletion?  On very good "authority";  WikiPedia is not running out of cyber-storage-space to have 10K words written about Aetherometry.  Would one of you like to offer an explanation of the word as simply a concept?  (Ya'll sound like some Microsoft ninnies who thinks "00" cost too much in memory space.  Have you heard?  There's plenty of room for even this CRAZY article)  - Anon who can prove it. &mdash; (Unsigned comment by 68.110.237.166; user's 8th edit.)
 * Neologisms aren't encyclopedic. And while, in general principle, I agree with you that articles ought to be considered for their subject rather than their content, allowing this hoax masquerading as valid science to remain is a disservice to the reader. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  01:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Hoax masquerading as valid science?" How would you know?  Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV.  FrankZappo 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ironic. That isn't a personal attack, nor being uncivil by the way. Its a perfectly legitimate allegation. Stop trying to evade the argument. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Neologisms aren't original research unless contributors actually make them up themselves. Kappa 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you see the talk page, the original contributors seem to be brainwashed follo...oh sorry, I mean "employees" of the Correas, who are contributing material to this article, and with all the snazzy (but meaningless terms). -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the main article (which needs to be shortened and NPOVed) and delete all its spin-offs. --Rlandmann 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - Issues on which I would readily change my vote: (1) Neologism: is there another term that accurately enfolds this theory? Please don't respond with "hoax" or "pseudoscience". If there is such a term, I'll change my vote to Merge. If not, it is self-consistent (if dubious) theory with no other reasonable title. (2) Is this original research? If so, delete it under that. (3) Why Vfd and not NPOV Dispute Tag? It sounds as if there is a legitimate discussion going on (enough right here to keep a talk page happy). If the overwhelming tide is against the theory, post the (verifiable, peer reviewed) rebuttals and change the lead to accurately reflect an NPOV. (4) "Dangerous", et al: If we delete all of the pages that reviewers would call "dangerous" and "crank", or that "undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia", the Christian Fundamentalists and the Humanists alone could cull 99% of the project, since about everything one believes is "dangerous" in the others' view. Happy to change my vote for a strong argument on any of these, but right now the debate above does more to prove why we should KEEP the page than why we should delete. Kevin/Last1in 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Changed to Keep20050624/2256z
 * Oy, Keep per Dragon's Flight. Notable pseudoscience needs to be debunked, even if it gives me a headache, and it can't be debunked without being defined. Xoloz 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, for the reasons User:Dragons flight gave. Delete the daughter articles, and a massive re-write of the main article would be mandatory for keeping. And it will be PITA on my watch list all the time thereafter. Sigh. --Pjacobi 06:57, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. It may be relevant enough to get an article some time, but the current article is worse than a blank sheet of paper, for writing a NPOV treatment of Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * Keep notable pseudo-science. JamesBurns 06:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. -ÅfÇ++ 07:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will be a complete waste of time. William M. Connolley 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * I don't know where you deletion-mavens are coming from, but it sure ain't from actually studying the stuff. I have been reading the Correas' research papers ever since they first started publishing them in 2001.  As is clear to anybody who actually takes the trouble of reading them, it is most certainly solid scientific work, is absolutely fascinating, and most likely a lot of it is correct (and, like with any new science, a lot of it may also be in error).  I think the number of Google hits is a pretty poor criterion for judging the merit of a science, no?   One would imagine that a "community encyclopedia" would be precisely the place where new scientific ideas coming from outside institutional science would find a hospitable home, and where people could come to learn about them.  What's the point of having a "community encyclopedia" if all it does is self-censor itself to look "respectable" in the eyes of the mainstream? I am very happy that somebody finally took the trouble to write a Wikipedia entry for Aetherometry.  Definitely Keep.  Patrick.
 * Delete. Changing my vote after seeing what is becoming of this article.  OldPatrick 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 66.217.178.48's first edit. --Etacar11 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Also (I hardly need to add, but I will anyway): wiki is most definitely *not* a friendly home for new theories. If the theory has no home outside wiki, it doesn't belong in wiki. William M. Connolley 18:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * Same old Patrick here (with his second edit). I am not sure what you mean by "has no home outside wiki".  Aetherometry has a huge webpage, with something like 50 monographs publicly available on it.  It certainly is not a homeless stray in need of a home, you know.  What I meant was that one (or at least old Patrick here) would expect a "community encyclopedia" to be hospitable to non-institutional science.  As far as I can see, though, even the Assume good faith policy was bypassed in this case.  I'll do the three twiddles this time.  Patrick.  66.217.178.106
 * You misunderstand. "Community encyclopedia" does not mean "lower standards". In this case, Aetherometry doesn't even fit the bar. It has to be a notable theory, first, and even more if its pseudoscientific and Wikipedians have already pointed out great gaping holes in its logic. It is hospitable to knowledge that benefits the community and the international reader. Generally, something informative. Something counter-productive like Aetherometry doesn't fit the goal, because its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence. And if it were notable, the encyclopedia's job is to give an NPOV look at it. Even if survived, the page has to go under tremendous cleanup, and to represent the theory as probably very unlikely. -- Natalinasmpf 22:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Forgive old Patrick here, but I am beginning to suspect that you are confusing Aetherometry with something else. Either this, or I seriously missed something.  What are the great gaping holes that the Wikipedians have pointed out in the logic of Aetherometry?  Could you list them for me?  Also, I have to confess that I thought the original article was a lot more informative than the one that's there now.  And I would think that a theory that results in a number of actual, working, new energy technologies would be a good candidate for something that benefits the community, rather than for something that should be called counter-productive.  And I am curious about this statement that "its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence".  You mean only notable things have a right to exist?  Poor old Patrick, I better go get myself some notability, otherwise I can't justify my existence.  OldPatrick 18:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you're missing the entire point. Better to say nothing, than to say something which might lead people down the wrong path. As for the "great gaping holes", it conflicts with quantum mechanics because it doesn't attribute some of the phenomena described in aetherometry to a "massfree/massbound" model, but something entirely different. I also note there isn't any clear correlation and compatability with the uncertainty principle either, and also a failure to cite, proper, verified evidence (ie. not a web page on an advocacy website, but an actual scientific paper, page by page, line by line)....emphasis - SPECIFIC paper, SPECIFIC page, SPECIFIC line. As for the "original article being more informative", its disputed: that information is horrendously wrong, or at least allegedly wrong, so I don't see how it benefits the community. It has to be NPOV'ed first, making wild claims just because it fills up the page doesn't make it "more informative". If I made a page about some snake oil product and proceeded to insert 200 kilobytes of information how it could benefit mankind, does it really benfit mankind? Oh, you're totally wrong on one count - "existence" - existence of having article. You're right, you better go get yourself some notability, or you can't justify your existence of having an OldPatrick article. Whoops, I see that article you created about yourself was already deleted. See autobiography.


 * Delete. Self-publicity. -- The Anome 21:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-promotion and original research. If I were convinced that aetherometry were an important and well-established theory/discipline within the perpetual motion, free energy, and "overunity" community, I'd vote weak keep and cleanup. However, using my "ratio of Google Web to Google Groups" test, I find a big discrepancy between the seemingly impressive 5000 hits in Google and the meager 53 hits in Google Groups. On most topics, Google Groups will have 1/5 to 1/10 the number of hits as you get on a Google Web search. However, Web hit counts are easily and frequently inflated by "search engine optimization" and vigorous self-promotion. Google Group hits can be inflated too, but few promoters bother because it is harder and of little economic importance. Now, the USENET newsgroups are veritable hotbeds of discussion of nontraditional-science, fringe science, and pseudoscience. "Tesla" gets 175,000 hits in Groups. "Homeopathy" gets 20,000. "Perpetual motion," exact phrase, gets 63,900, and "Overunity" gets 1760. In this context, 53 hits is a very small number and suggests to me that aetherometry is not accepted as a standard theory within the perpetual motion/free energy/overunity community. Will change my vote if someone convinces me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to: Merge and redirect to Aether . I decided that I'd ask Tim Harwood what he thought, since he attempted to build a kind of Adams motor. He has not convinced me that Aetherometry has much standing within the community that believes in the Aether sensu H. Aspden. But he argues the Aether is an important enough theory to merit some coverage in Wikipedia. I accept that. But we do have such an article, and it is Aether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Article "Aether", as distinct from luminiferous aether, as distinct from aether drag hypothesis as distinct from aetherometry. There is a tremendous amount of material to read on all of these.  Merge? How? TTLightningRod


 * Changing vote (again) to Keep in present form. Now a good short article about borderline-notable pseud
 * Delete. Original research, neologism, not notable, advertising, vanity, kookery, you name it.  There's so much wrong with this article it's not worth trying to clean up. --Carnildo 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dpbsmith: As I read, and try to edit, I do not see a clear assertion that aetherometry is held as "perpetual motion/free energy/overunity". If it was, I would agree that it is vastly marginal to science, and even pseudoscientific.  What I would then suggest, is that the subject may be a worthy field of study for not claiming "free energy".  Therefor your search analysis may lend more weight to simply a fringe science trying to find its rightful vocabulary. (our job as wikipedians) your thoughts? TTLightningRod 00:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Compare and contrast aether with vacuum energy. Unlike aetherometry, quantum mechanics asserts that vacuum energy on the whole is a closed system - if it contributes "matter" to the physical universe through virtual particles, stuff like black holes for example, require expenditure of energy in order to separate the virtual particle pairs. This ends up not producing any energy. It seems that aetherometry, while not explicitly being a "free energy" science, asserts that there is a source of energy easily tapped into, or far more available than it really is. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. My reason is that there is a clear demand for an aether page from a section of the WIKi community, and we seem to go through posting, VFD, on a very regular basis, on this subject. I just think the constant VFD is getting boring. Timharwoodx 00:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable kookery, original research, vanity. Quale 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, pseudoscience, yes; but it's a decades old accumulation of stuff, mostly connected with other pseudoscientific trends that are ongoing and have been for decades, that is, Reich, Free energy, aether theories, etc. and there are articles on these if only to warn/inform the readers of what they are, and place it in the historical scheme of such things. "Aetherometry" may be an obscure name, but the effort behind it is massive, (if only 2 people) and I suspect it will keep popping up in various places (in the wider culture of the net), so better to have something about it that is balanced (ie, after the rewrite). It's not your flash in mind delusion, but rather a long standing one. IE notable. cf User:Dragons flight comments. (I also think not impossible they may stumble on something new and valuble, but fear they will be too ignorant to recognize it as they rant on about the aether and their persecutions.)GangofOne 08:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you guys considered actually informing yourselves on this stuff before you start voting one way or another? So far, you don't seem to be able to tell the Aether from theories about the Aether, science ficttion from science, a "kind of Adams motor" from any other "kind of" Adams motor, one Aether theory from another, an Aether theory from cold fusion, and your ass from a hole in the ground.  I propose that the article should be kept at least until you self-appointed editors have read it and educated yourselves.  FrankZappo 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Second edit of User:FrankZappo. And may be classified as personal attack. And I've read enough to bang my head against the monitor, see Talk:Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, did I miss something? I don't see a single piece of evidence in Talk:Aetherometry that you have actually read through the article, let alone tried to understand it.  All I see are counts of Google hits, statements about how a degree in molecular biology is irrelevant to work in biophysics, and other deep ponderings on that same level.   Where, as they used to say in my youth, is the beef?  FrankZappo 16:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see a single piece of evidence supporting Aetherometry either. Sorry, citing the Correas work doesn't count, because that's basically a piece of work citing itself as a source. Tried to understand it? There is nothing to understand - this work contradicts itself so much I highly doubt it, especially with its definition of "energy without inertia". I cite logical arguments discounting YOUR evidence, and as such that counts as evidence as in such. Perhaps you should also think about the fact that many Wikipedians work in similar fields, and have as much authority to discount the theory as the Correas do to support it? -- Natalinasmpf 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say that what you wrote above seems totally confused. If you want evidence for the claims of Aetherometry, then you have to start by reading through, and understanding, the experimental and methodological work that lays down this evidence - in exactly the same way as people wanting to understand Faraday's claims had to start by reading, or seeing demonstrations of, Faradays experiments.  How else would you know, about any scientific endeavour, what it is that is being claimed and why?  And no, people who know nothing about Aetherometry do not have any authority to discount it.  Aetherometry represents the result of over 20 years of painstaking experimental and theoretical work.  One does not gain "authority" to make any judgement about it simply by virtue of "working in a similar field".  The only authority comes from studying the work, reproducing the experiments, thinking through the theoretical claims, etc.  It is no different with Aetherometry than with any science.  You're being silly.   FrankZappo 19:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff.  Exempt from ordinary laws, or what?  And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities".  FrankZappo 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have factual basis, Aetherometry, can't be true: this view being supported by the scientific community at large, and I already have given many reasons why its implausible, noting that it lacks peer review. Slander? Hardly. It is very likely a hoax, and trying to get the law on your side? Ironic, considering how this is a fraud and a scam to cheat donations. Oh, you address me wrongly. -- Natalinasmpf 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * careful. makeing legal threats on wikipedia is against policy.Geni 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * All that you have a factual basis for is saying that Aetherometry is not recognized by the scientific community at large. This is absolutely not a basis for concluding that it is a hoax, a scam, or a cheat.  First of all, aetherometry could be largely correct, but has not yet been recognized as such.  Secondly, aetherometry could be largely or totally wrong without being a hoax - there are a lot of erroneous scientific claims being worked on inside and outside of scientific institutions all over the world, every day of every week.  Science progresses through error, you know.  You have absolutely no basis for the claims you make, and you are defaming the reputation of people you know nothing about, simply because somebody put up an entry about their work in the Wikipedia.  this just doesn't compute.


 * More interestingly, you seem to have an ignorant and naive view of the "scientific community" and of "peer review". Do you really think that the process whereby official science pemits something to "pass" is not permeated by politics and entrenched interests?   You should read some case histories of how the so-called "peers" in scientific institutions treat those who try to think "outside the box".  Do you know that Halton Arp has been banned from being able to do work - or even enter an observatory - in the US?  Do you know that Eric Laithwaite was ostracised by his "scientific peers" when he made experimental discoveries that did not jive with the official theories of rotary motion?  Examples abound, but of course they don't get much talked about.  Even the Wikipedia entry for Halton Arp has been cleansed of all "controversial" material.   I would recommend, however, that you educate yourself about the realities of the "scientific review" process before you put it on such a pedestal.   FrankZappo 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: Even though the article remains in near complete shambles no small thanks to a number of so-called wikipedians with a demonstrated hostile point of view against the very first word. (The edit history of these three pages tells a very clear story.)  The main body of the attempted article appears to have much to say if only legitimate nondeletionist edits could proceed.


 * To agree or disagree with the theory, concept, idea, model, experimental findings, reference material and cross checkable links to a multitude of third party citations (the "holy" peer review); that is not the job of wikipedia.  To confirm that those components are included, (which they clearly were in this case) is the job of wikipedians if they would merely read the content.  (even should they now have to read the deleted portions saved in the history)


 * What I find far more striking to the last 24 hours, is that several people, well spoken and initially extending the polite "assume good faith" tact, by going to great length to address howling accusation of "hoax and charlatanry", as would seem humanly possible.  Not one, or two but several people have attempted to work upon the main body article.  (Again the edit history shows) A steady, and tirelessly unproductive effort of comment-less deletion and belittlement.  Little more than a few capitals and commas, compared to the real effort performed by the initially polite individuals.  Now? It's an all out brawl, resisted at length by the initial posters and straggling but real support, for an article simply entitled, Aetherometry. TTLightningRod


 * Natalinasmpf's arguments have convinced me to change my vote... to Keep. I still think the concept is hokum (ala Cold fusion or even the Sokal Affair), but ask Tesla, Galileo, and Darwin about "peer review" as applied to new areas of science. More importantly, take a good long look at the career of Wegener before assuming a theory is unworthy of interest because YOU and the mainstream scientists you learned from don't like it or find it "implausible". He died in ignominy thirty years before the "mainstream" realized he was essentially correct. For a physics version, try Murray Gell-Mann, whose Eightfold Way was "widely considered self-evidently nonsensical." Vote keep if you believe in quarks. Kevin/Last1in 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm on the verge of voting keep myself. I voted delete before because I wasn't sure the article could be salvaged. I just need it to be represented NPOV - and mind you, for every 100 fringe theories there are, only 1 of them are bound to be fruitful. Peer review just picks them out. Its just the way things are. It was just at first glance, it looked awfully like a hoax and commercial spam to me. -- Natalinasmpf 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The clean up notice should stay in place until the article meets Wikipedia criterion.  Perhaps even a disclaimer type of notice at the beginning would help allay the angst felt by many at Wikipedia about this subject getting coverage here.  "Note that the following article is considered too speculative and on the fringe by a significant portion of Wikipedia participants, and was nearly deleted for that reason.  It is in process of being brought into conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and other encyclopedic criteria. -- Sterlingda 23:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm all for having notable crackpot theories in but this isn't notable. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough notable crank theory. They should establish themselves elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Natalinasmpf.-gadfium 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're behind the times. Agreeing with Natalinasmpf doesn't mean what it used to, you know - it now means that you're on the verge of voting "keep".  Get with it, man.  Also, what happened here?  Three slam-dunk "delete" votes in a row!  Did Connelley go and bring in reinforcements?  Maybe I'll go and see if I can bring in my uncle Bob to vote.  OldPatrick


 * Depends. I haven't changed my vote yet. Oh, its not that "Connolley went and brought in reinforcements" - for goodness sake, its on the front of the votes for deletion page. Maybe you haven't seen: Votes for Deletion and Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 20? Being a community encylopedia, you shouldn't be surprised if a whole host of other people turn up. There's nothing peculiar about three delete votes in a row, either. Bringing in your uncle by the way, its called a sockpuppetry. -- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm Helicoid, the poor devil responsible for this storm, this vote, and I have not voted yet. How do you tally my vote, if I vote to keep my entry or any reasonable fac-simile, but vote to delete the pure vandalized abortion that now stands on the altar of sheer aprioristic intolerance in this Wikipedia? Does NPOV say it is 16 to 10?Helicoid 04:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you would be voting Keep. As for whether its "aproristic intolerance", I find that quite funny, considering that other professional encylopedias would have rejected your entry in the first place. You really take things for granted. Unless you happened to be desperate to advertise your views? OH NO! It backfired didn't it? You originally wanted this for a niche to publish your views, well guess what, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Maybe you can go to Wikicities or something, instead.-- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, topic is of no significance. Wikipedia is not a platform for crackpot theories--nixie 14:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. What the hell. --Alterego 19:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh brother. Now - look at that! -Aetherometry has become a "belief system".  There is just no end to the entertainment, is there.  When I voted to "keep", I didn't vote to keep whetever idiocy you-all choose to spout into the article, I voted to keep an article that provided accurate and cogent information on what Aetherometry actually is, not on what any Tom Dick and Harry may think it is.  So here is my vote, spelled out:


 * Keep and work on it; otherwise, Delete. FrankZappo 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that the indefatiguable and multi-talented Connelley took it upon herself to actually edit, and emasculate, another person's comments.   I thought editing another person's comments was a wikipedia "community" no-no.  But since it is not, I will start happily practicing it.  Meanwhile, here is the actual vote of the above user, before Connelley "edited" it to suit his fancy:


 * Keep the original article and work on it; otherwise, Delete.
 * THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Got that???  Words mean specific things, you know.
 * Now, off I go to edit other people's comments. 165.154.24.194 00:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Simply unbelievable how mr. connolley also is irresponsible. An administrator who censors a user's text and freely alters it because of an emotional reaction to the term wikipediafascism in the title? Wow, that's naked power! Where is the rule of law of this democracy that protects that user, the sameness in treatment, the no abuse of power?? Let's hear it! loud and clear, mr. connolley. Fascism, people, is how this kind of behavior was called in my young days. It is not Wikipedia that will change its meaning. Nor laws which will correct it. Only courage will.  I propose that connolley do the right thing: muzzle himself and step down. Assume responsibility. i guess that he will not do that until someone will report him to the higher authorities. could one ask the anarchist to do this too, report connolley to the higher authorities? No factotum sharing? Just repugnant abuses of power!209.29.93.65 04:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you vote delete. Ironically, although you termed it fascism, you realise it seems the other way round. It has become a belief system, unless you back it up with unverifiable sources. You take things for granted, you realise that even Encylopedia Britannica would not accept your article, so who are you to condemn us? Idiocy? Is that a personal attack? Just because the original author wanted the article to be that way, doesn't mean the article is going to stay that way. The original article was so full of POV and unsupported statements, the text had to go - we may put it back when you help us NPOV it. Furthermore, no one "owns" an article", and how an article is shaped is decided by the community, not one person. Ironically, "accurate and cogent" information is not what your article is, considering how it conflicts with a whole host of accepted scientific theories, which I am sure most Wikipedians and scientists (such as WMC) will agree with me on this point. I'd advise you not to credit Wikipedia for that article you have on your own server - that's Helicoid's " brilliant prose", which has been rejected by the community unless its NPOV'ed. Not what any "Tom Dick and Harry" thinks it is? Well, we're a wiki, and by standard deviation we thus shape it into a good article, and not the word by ONE user, but by a community. -- Natalinasmpf 22:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ..... right, you've just about got it all down to one user.....  oh wait...  I'm here too.  When it comes to historically destructive users, I now know at least one name to put on that list. "oops" TTLightningRod


 * I'm referring to those users who want the article in its "original pristine" state - ie. the first edit of this page - the one he linked to (but WMC removed because the url was inappropriate). You DID agree to NPOV the article, so you don't count as one of them. -- Natalinasmpf 23:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A final suppression of Aetherometry by five administrators at least, all admittedly ignorant of Aetherometry, all highly biased (the bias of power??). Interesting how they deconstructed Helicoid's text. There was nothing left of it in a click. Same with Helicoid who has been muzzled until the vote is over. Nothing left. What is the vote for? To give the appearance of democracy? What you call a vote on a submission that half-way through the vote is trashed and replaced? The triumph of the barbarians. Vote to Delete. And vote to Delete the 5 administrators for sheer POVness (or is it POVerty?). Where's the page for that? 209.29.93.57 23:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 209.29.93.57 is the user's first edit.


 * Below is asked suppression of what? Suppression of the right to free speech of Helicoid on the last day of a rigged vote by supposedly unbiased admins. Suppression of the original contribution by Helicoid so that the vote had no bearing on anything even mildly intelligent and informative.  Suppression of the original text without foundation, knowledge of cause, legitimate reasons, because of an overt refusal to consult the many links that were given. Suppression of any effort to be constructive.  Suppression of knowledge on the basis of inadmissible bias - intellectual bias, scientifism (false interpretations of institutional science passed off as real ones), scientificity (false and grave misrepresentations of a theory, a model, etc, with total disregard for facts and the contents of the material), discrimination of minoritarian thought, outright put down of minorities, admitted and verified ignorance. Suppression of facts. Suppression of records. Alteration of records by admins and minors. Suppression with extreme prejudice.209.29.93.65 05:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Suppression of what? I recognise the danger of Orwellianism, et al, but you're pretty ironic as this is a free encylopedia mandated by the community. Furthermore, Aetherometry has very little notability, and you're lucky we even tolerate this article in the first place. If this article is to exist, it needs to be NPOV'ed as that is the spirit agreed on by the community. Its not "Helicoid's text", its an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Its a place to publish facts. No one owns an article. Have you read the disclaimer? "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Its a community encylopedia, to be improved by anyone, according to the NPOV policy. Helicoid? Muzzled? He was blocked for 24 hours, not until the vote was over, and only because he violated the 3 revert rule, stampeding over other people's editing rights. The vote? Its to decide the consensus. It can be appealed, or brought up later, and it isn't absolute. Oh, I'd advise you not to make a personal attack, either. What "bias of power"? Each Wikipedian is supposed to act like an administrator - just that the power is granted to those who have proven themselves not to be sockpuppets, vandals, etc. Do you get the idea of what a wiki is? Its supposed to be IMPROVED, so it could be kept. Do see What Wikipedia is not and Replies to common objections. It is not "suppression", in the meanwhile, because it is DISPUTED whether it deserves to have its own article or not. If you don't want it to be suppressed, work within the framework. We can't acknowledge it as truth - that is not "suppression", that is going over the top with some theory that even Encylopedia Britannica wouldn't accept. If you really want to base all your conclusions on one vfd, well, who am I to force you not to? Perhaps you should actually take a look around, and realise how Wikipedia works - the idea is to judge by consensus of the community, and I hardly call that "suppression". -- Natalinasmpf 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh delete already and be done with it. Unbelievable.  A true case study in how "democracies" secrete lynch mobs.  Makes me puke.  And yes, this is my first friggin' edit.  I am probably somebody's popp sucket.  165.154.24.194 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * A lynch mob? We're simply following the NPOV policy, so I do not think this is a "lynch mob". Perhaps you're unhappy your view isn't represented, but in order to do so, since your view is a minority view, it has to be represented as such, whic seems fair. We have to remove the prose concerning extensive theories of aetherometry because they haven't been verified and they assert themselves as truth. What you can do, is help represent claims as claims, and fact as fact, and then perhaps it seems less like suppression. Can we agree that most of what the Correas are advocating are claims that have not been fully replicated to warrant a recognition of it as fact? -- Natalinasmpf 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that the Britannica was the Wikipedia standard. But is the standard of Britannica to declare something into a belief system "unless you back it up with unverifiable sources", as you wrote above? Kinda doubt it. Fishy, no? How much of a community encyclopedia is Wikipedia when 5 admins and a Chihuahua become judges of what is or not (1) factual (is the original submission factual? which is different from:is its content factual?), (2) peer-reviewed or peer-tested or not, (3) worthy of mention, (4) worthy of study, (5) a science, a quasi-science, or a falsification, intentional or not? A little humility on the part of admins in dealing with the situation would have been the smart move. Suppression, falsification of records (as in Talk), addition of scurrilous pages, muzzling ("each Wikipedian is supposed to act like an Administrator..." - a good joke when power is stacked by a very visible policy of suppression), destruction of texts, rush to judgement: not very smart. Not to mention the Wikipedia policy of removing gratuitous slander of third parties.209.29.93.57 23:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not the proper place for a serious article about anything.  The overall quality of "information" in the Wikipedia is appalling - as is inevitable with a publication whose editorial process encourages incompetent people to "boldly edit" and muck with the work of people who are more knowledgeable.  Who in the world would buy a print encyclopedia whose editors did not recognize that every subject has its experts, and that those experts are more qualified to convey knowledge about their subject than others are?   But if its "Wiki", then suddenly a free-for-all can have the pretensions to being a "professional" and "reliable" source of knowledge.  Delete, delete.  It's embarrassing.   199.232.231.114 03:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, POV pseudoscience lacking references. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 08:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Delete. It's obviously impossible to have an intelligent article on the subject when every nerd with a computer and his brother thinks he/she has something to say about a subject without having the slightest clue what they're talking about.. Just take a look at the pages of these 'peer editors'.  What a calamity!   It's the brave new knowledge of wiki idiocy and a page on  Aetherometry indeed has no place here! I agree, 199.232.231.114,  whoever you are.   Delete, delete  ,delete4.233.123.87 09:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its obviously impossible to have an intelligent article when every single pro-aetherometry fanatic and his or her acquaintances thinks he or she can substantiate a questionable theory about physics without having the slightest piece of evidence to cite....just look at the web pages of these "scientists". What a calamity! Its a brave new knowledge of the era founded by the Correas and all their snake oil vending! -- Natalinasmpf 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You are a sick puppie, an out-of-control petty despot - back to gratuitous slander! Only happy when putting down others - which this time ain't working, hum? But why don't you stop your lamentations and friggin' vote Delete. Have the courage to delete. Reverse your reversal. You don't seem to know whether you're coming or going, muchacho.209.29.93.65 09:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, slander? Hardly, its a perfectly legitimate statement. I have seen nothing from you except religious devotion to your beloved Correas and prompt rejection if anyone dares criticise them, to the extent of calling it "slander". This is vfd for a presentation of reasons to delete or keep. I can change my vote if I want. -- Natalinasmpf 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And there you have it. Mr. Natalinasmpf once again, displaying his irrepressible, obnoxious  POV.  Why don't you try to be honest, just once in these pages.  You've been on a campaign to slander the correas from the get go, and here you come again with your snake oil stupidities.  Just vote for deletion.  It's obvious that you'll never be able to treat the material in an impartial manner - your POV screams from one end of this discussion to the other. Has it occurred to you that it's more than mildly fanatic to consider yourself on a  noble mission to save mankind from the clutches of aetherometry without having the slightest idea of what Aetherometry might be?  Silly little boy. 4.233.123.165 09:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''Of course its POV. Its a talk page comment'''. As to be on a "campaign to slander the Correas from the get go", I never heard of them until five days ago, and I simply question their credentials because of my OPINION that this theory is bunk. Oh, I'm afraid that by addressing me, you severely jumped to conclusions. Its not that I "don't have the slightest idea of what aetherometry is", because aetherometry is nonsense, as much nonsense as Sollog is. That is my opinion. I'm not producing it in the article, but I deserve the right to make such an opinion known on this talk page. Fanatic to be on a noble mission, I consider that a good thing. A religious devotion to an unsubstantiated theory, no. Criticise me because my attitude, but not because of my nationality, race or age, you bigot.-- Natalinasmpf 10:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In five days a young zealot mind was formed? No, it took at least 14 years for its unconscious to form, is that not so? Is Wikipedia the place for fanatics with a noble mission? I guess so.209.29.93.65 10:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What did you think Wikipedia was for? Profit? No. Its to provide an encylopedia to the world. A noble mission. Zealotry? Ironic, considering your lack of verifiable sources. To this date none of you (Helicoid, Patrick, you and all the people who registered and "arrived" days ago not to contribute to Wikipedia, but to push POV) - has provided a verifiable source. Unless you provide a verifiable source, all my statements are valid. Do you brand me with those who type in AOLer? Is that it? Talk about an open mind. -- Natalinasmpf 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very well then: opinionated POV, zealotry, unwillingness to inform oneself, fanatics of any sort on so-called noble missions should have no place in any forum purporting to be concerned with knowledge, information and learning. But you could at least have the courage of your obnoxious convictions and vote to delete.

Unfortunately, just because I have a POV on the issue doesn't mean I can't contribute. Nearly all Wikipedians have POV's with similar zealotry, probably even you, on any case, concerning any subject. I am not making a personal attack against any other Wikipedian: I reserve the right to criticise the theory if I wish, its perfectly legitimate. Its a point of view. That's the whole point. Everyone has a POV - but that's on the talk page. I did not bring this into the article space. As for "unwilligness to inform oneself" - I have duly informed myself, and I have viewed the advocacy websites. You can't assume "I haven't read the material" just because I disagree with you. It appears this is out of spite. Funny, "I have no place", but you want me to vote delete? Do make your mind. I am not changing my vote unless you provide me good reason to. -- Natalinasmpf 10:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Who are you addressing? Who do you think you're fooling? It looks like not even the ABC of Relativity you knew, let alone that of Aetherometry? Can't somebody be done with this obsessive character just by closing the darn vote? Isn't it past time? It appears that whether the entry goes or stays is now in your Heliogabalic-anarchist hands. Go for it. Have no fear before God, sonny.209.29.93.65 10:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so arrogant to presume I don't know the "ABC's of relativity"? As for closing the vote, it takes an entire week to decide. AS for "whether the entry stays or goes", that only happens if I happen to be a vote swinger (ie. its a close count), not because I commnand the votes. Who do you think YOU are fooling when you assert aetherometry has been substantiated? Obsessive character? Ironic. -- Natalinasmpf 11:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. My favorite quote from the one who appears to be the major wikibureaucrat (Natalinasmpf) is: "It has become a belief system, unless you back it up with unverifiable sources." I'm perplexed: was that a Freudian slip, or did he really mean that? If you want verifiable, go read Experimental Aetherometry Volume 1 - lots of detailed experimental data there (and you can easily verify it by relpicating the experiments). However, if you'd rather continue to believe that laboratory electroscopes can produce energy from nothing, you won't be interested in the results. 199.232.231.114 03:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Woops - forgot the 4 tildas in the previous post. Please forgive me. 69.17.136.204 21:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Freudian slip? Do tell me - a book written by the Correas is not a third party source. Its a reference no doubt, but its part of the aetherometry advocates in itself, not checked by third party scientists. As for "producing energy from nothing" that's ironic, although it doesn't explicitly say so, by claiming your "philosophy from Tesla", you are indeed looking for some alternative new free energy source, that is dubious at best. A book isn't a scientific paper, either. Unless other scientists took it upon themselves to peer review it. And for the umpteenth time, you address me wrongly, but I guess lack of common sense and a sense of what science is leaves you perplexed. Experimental Aetherometry Volume 1, unless you can cite me page number, line number, and reviews by other scientific journals, page number and line number included - its not verifiable. You can't say, "oh, I have a source at so and so, so I don't need to cite" - ISDN number, page number, line number - and oh, a bookw written by the Correas does not count, because they do not cite third party sources. Do provide me with an experiment of something reproducible. In fact, instead of filling the article with nonsense on how you think the universe works, give us the outline of detailed, reproducible experiments, and then tell us how that is evidence. It would be most appreciated. The best thing about you aetherometry proponents is that you claim, "I have sources, do you really want me to cite them to you"? And then we request, yes, we want those sources cited, page number/line number - and you don't provide. You evade the question, and rather continue attacking us. Logical fallacy - maybe you don't have anything to provide. Of course, I want to say its nonsense. I'm not saying its nonsense on the article, so I am not violating anything. But since you're so uncivil, I see no reason why I should exercise caution either. -- Natalinasmpf 18:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of the lesson sank in with you, no? After all you have grown 1 year older, you're now 15, and your wikipage no longer says that you are an extremist anarcho-communist who is not a bolshevik! All overnight miracles. You say you're now a social-libertarian. You might yet become an aetherometrist, who knows? The fervor will not help, but the determination could. Alright, young Natalinas social libertarian: what are you doing, man? Don't you want the entry deleted? Think about all the work that you and your administrator friends are going to have to do just to keep up with the entry's...er, accuracy? Helicoid.


 * You're nitpicking. My birthday was in May. I was born in 1990. I am therefore 15, I just forgot to update. And I'm still an anarcho-communist, although I don't see how that matters. If you see the article on anarcho-communism, you can clearly see its part of the broader libertarian socialist movement. I don't see how this is relevant to aetherometry though. As for being an aetherometrist, at the moment, I just have a piqued curiosity for something I very much doubt the credibility of. Until of course, you can provide me with actual sources. As for "all the work", we take pride in work. We just don't want inane, inaccurate and biased articles such as the "original article" you so claim -- Natalinasmpf 20:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Guess you're old enough to vote but ignorant enough to know that libertarian is not spelled liberterian. And your dense enough not to realize that Mallove was a libertarian, that the influences on the philosophy of Aetherometry are "libertarian". Anyway, we have seen you act when your curiosity (obsession? Fanaticism? Zeal? Fundamentalism?) is piqued. I still have not heard your apologies, your retraction, nor seen your vote to delete. Who cares, no? Anyway, it is pleasing to see you change labels and remain self-same. Helicoid.


 * It was a typographical error. As for being "dense", Mallove is libertarian indeed, but not libertarian socialist. And the "philosophy of aetherometry" has nothing to do with it. Unless you're inventing something like the crackpot of Nietszche's Will to Power (a lot of people disagree with me on that point, but they don't prosecute me for defaming Nietszche, now do they?) who thinks a novel model of science based on the presence of energy can spurn its own philosophical ideas, I hardly think libertarianism and aetherometry are related to each other. As for apologies and retraction, I will not budge. I will remain steadfast in my opinion. The decision to vote keep or delete is based on whether the article can be salvaged or not. Unless you want to resort to legal threats to enforce my retraction of the stance. -- Natalinasmpf 22:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding Natalinasmpf's remarks regarding "the crackpot of Nietszche's Will to Power (a lot of people disagree with me on that point, but they don't prosecute me for defaming Nietszche, now do they?)"


 * No they don't. Of course, Nietzsche's been dead for some time now.... while those other people you've seen fit to slander aren't, but it probably goes a long way to explain why the Wikipedia Nietzsche page is in the perfectly abominable state it's in.  Don't tell me,  you did your google due diligence again...  Ah if not you, perhaps it was some of your google jockey cohorts.4.231.170.117


 * Abominable state it's in? Except for possibly reverting page blanking vandalism, I haven't touched that page. So what if the other people I criticise aren't dead? Is it slander? No. Does making it viewable on a public forum make it slander? No, because its a perfectly legitimate statement to state that such and such is a snake oil vendor, if given limited credibility. Google "jockey" cohorts? Yes, we coordinate edits together with the other tens of thousands of regular editors here, but if you want to call of them "jockey cohorts", go ahead. -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So irresponsible you are, Natalinasmpf, that you cannot even admit to a spelling mistake that you made several times in the previous day. Dysneyland libertarian socialist what-have-you, you have the mind of a Stalino. Helicoid.


 * Spelling mistake? Do you really want to nitpick over that? Let me remind you that your grammar isn't so up to standard either, and in fact worse. Should I cite you the history? -- Natalinasmpf 22:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're no wonder child, you know: the lesson is this: you're so stubborn as to not even accept responsibility for YOUR OWN spelling errors. I will gladly accept responsibility for mine and anything else. Even be banned before I call a cop on you. Now that's fortitude. That's the difference between being juvenile (or infantile) and being young in the mind. Get that? Helicoid.


 * What? I wasn't the one who called a block on you, by the way. I was in school when you were blocked. Mel Etitis blocked you on his own accord. As for "accepting responsibility for my own spelling errors", as I have But I see you've evaded all my other points on this issue, including sources to cite. Way to go. Your sockpuppet, 209.29.93.65, that is you - contributed some edits with gross grammar errors including omission of the definite and indefinite articles, and severe misspellings. Perhaps you should check the aetherometry article history? Typing "libeterianism" is a subconscious bad habit, not a spelling mistake. -- Natalinasmpf 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Before any industrious admins engaged in "tedious housekeeping activities" descend upon me to delete my comments, I would like to claim the same courtesy from them to express my unabashed POV for deletion, as has been extended to their most dubious 'editors' to express theirs.  I would also  like to say  to TTLightningRod, as I cast my vote for STRONG DELETION   that it  looks to me like you're definitely in the wrong forum here, mate...  As far as I'm concerned it can't come down fast enough.   I did, however want to tell you, GangofOne and 209.29.93.65 that I was following all your careful and painstaking work last night with some interest and enjoyment  - only to see the demolition derby move back in - led by the Katefan0 of beer girl fame and little Radioactive boyscout from you-know-where.   Ah yes, and then came the fastidious victorian ladies tea party suffragettes on their way to clear the good names of Tesla and Einstein of what, remains, I'm afraid, entirely opaque. This purifying activity is pure burlesque  It would seem to me that a person with your intelligence definitely needs to find another home for his activities.  I have run this by the kittens who, as you may imagine, concurred.  I encourage you to do the obvious - vote to delete! 4.240.78.145 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, what a joke. It would take every minute of every day of somebody's life to keep this article from constantly lapsing into senseless drivel by the hands of these self-appointed "editors".  I don't know who had the brilliant idea of putting it up, but if it was an experiment, it seems to me it has run its course.  DELETE.  Wildboar 23:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senseless drivel? Self-appointed editors? Oh you mean people like Helicoid right, who think they "own" and have "authority" over the article? Oh, see what a wiki is. Its "self-appointed", but given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Of course Helicoid and friends want to be the sole contributors to the article. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I voted already; but just in case it was unclear: I vote to delete, now that the original submission was suppressed (can still be found at driftline; that's Wikipedia Fascism, at the home of the Deleuze and Guattari archive!) and trashed, and it is plain that even what now remains of the entry is little informative. It certainly explains NOTHING of the theory of Aetherometry or the accomplishments of the Correas, Mallove and their friends and collaborators. It sucks.  So I'm glad to see that a majority of Aetherometry sympathizers have managed to get a majority for DELETE.  Make my vote count: DELETE.  Sorry, no more lessons. Ha and shut up fake anarchist-liberterien-suckyoulist expert in demolition and tantrums. Time for thumb sucking. Helicoid


 * I don't get it, Helicoid. Aren't you the author of the original article?  If you want it taken down, why do you have to vote?  Can't you just request that it be taken down?   165.154.24.119 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Did you read the disclaimers? Did you read the bottom box below when you clicked "edit this page"? No one owns the article. As of currently, all this information is under the GFDL. -- Natalinasmpf 23:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accomplishments? The problem is that whether they are accomplishments are not are contested in the first place. If you want to explain the accomplishments of the Correas, then do it neutrally. Do it with referenced sources. The original submission can still be found in the first revision of this article. How can it be "suppressed"? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. The concept is that an article is never in a "static" state. It wasn't suppressed, it was improved. And sometimes improvement requires removal of unsubstantiated claims until they can be supported. As for "ha and shut up", it very much shows your desperation and sheer helplessness. -- Natalinasmpf 23:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article itself has disappeared as of the following entry in its history log: 23:24, 24 Jun 2005 Karada (trimming right back to what, I hope, we can all agree on) The page, however, continues to exist as 3 paragraphs. Now that the article has been disposed of (2 days ago) without the completed vote, I strongly recommend removing the page itself. Natalinasmpf - Since you didn't get the Freudian slip, I'll give you your long-sought-after unverifiable source: If you go to the main library in the city of Tashkanapor on the planet Kandalor, you'll find all the sources you could dream of. How's that for 'unverifiable'? Just take my word. Guess you haven't yet figured out the function of peer review in our an archistic world. Now, DELETE the whole page. 69.17.136.204 23:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's third edit. -- Natalinasmpf 23:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is in progress. It is not the final article. What happens is that you and your friends are so hesitant to cooperate, that the article is not moving anywhere. All you do is throw personal attacks around. And giving me an unverifiable source is completely opposite to what I asked for. I asked for a verifiable one, not an unverifiable one. Take my word? Its YOUR evidence that's in question. And you think you have the arrogance to be the sole one who wants to delete, along with you and your sockpuppeteering friends? This is a community encylopedia, not the Correas' encylopedia, and never had to submit to the fascist authority of aetherometrists. I can see how you are so paranoid though, you originally wanted to come here to propagate your hoax but now it has horrendously backfired and you are about to get a notable reference to put it in a light you'd rather not. Indeed quite the hypocrites when you accuse me of fascism, because its the corporate - fascist, propagation you aetherometrists have been trying to propagate all along. "Aetherometry is libertarian"? My foot. -- Natalinasmpf 23:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Improvement" by Natalinas, Mel Etitis, Knott, etc (the admin gang) is rather apparent. Natalinas, you make me cry of laughter. But the improvement will not stand for long as the vote is to delete (every abortion should be deleted). What good reasons can you make to keep? Only fools would bother with your kind. But let's say that I'm a fool 'coz I needed a taste of your kind of democracy, power, intelligence, goodwill, sharp wit, independence from authorities, knowledge, accuity, just to remind me of how lousy mao-maos (that's stalinist-maoist fanatics) are.  Ah, and how fascism is indeed, even today, the dearest secretion of leftism. Wikipedia: the fascism of leftist majorities of administrators desperately trying to control the content of culture and knowledge, and monopolize meaning. NPOV certificates available!  Apply to Karada, Jacobi, Connolley, etc!  Factotums wanted!  Preferably self-styled anarchists and underage! Apply to Wikipedia (Google too?). Helicoid

Good reasons to keep? Well, since you all voted keep at the start, and have proven me how notably dangerous and how false, this kind of "science" is, I vote to keep to inform readers of the truth about aetherometry, and include scientific critique of it when I have time. Unless of course, you want to cooperate, make aetherometry look better, and generally treat other editors with respect, I could change all of that. I bet the millions of others that hit this site each day are "fools" as well, I guess. Fascism is the secretion of leftism? Pardon me, but it's rather the opposite, Bolsheivks and Mao - and all of them - they were "right-wingers" who purposely hijacked the communist ideology for their state capitalist gain. Mao Maos? That's your kind, not mine. Its the kind aetherometrists seem to be made out of, to denounce constructive edits as "suppression", while masking their own suppression of their opposition as "vandalism and ignorance". Truly platonic, I can see. Majories of administrators? Are you insinuating that the hundreds of thousands of contributors, millions if you count legitimate anonymous contributors are all part of a grand conspiracy? Unfortunately, it seems that's what aetherometry is in fact, how ironic. A plot and a scam to try to suck the unwitting reader into its plutocratic grasp. "Underage"? Unfortunately, age does not define validity of contribution. As for asserting your authority over the article, how fascist as well, you want it to be deleted, simply because YOU, as an individual, can't stand it, and you want to assert your pro-fascist ideology over everyone else, and condemn constructive editing, and project that would undermine your power based on ignorance. -- Natalinasmpf 23:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Natalinas, you as qualified to "inform readers of the truth about aetherometry" as I am to write a treatise about sea cucumbers. And are you threatening Helicoid that unless she cooperates, you are going to "make aetherometry look bad"?  That's what it sounds like:  "Unless of course, you want to cooperate, make aetherometry look better, and generally treat other editors with respect, I could change all of that.".  In other words, you're threatening that if Helicoid doesn't "cooperate", you will spread lies about Aetherometry.  Nice goings on - all brought to us by the Spotless Wikipedia Team.  And isn't it rather ignoble to vote to keep an article out of hatred for its subject matter?  Man, you are one demented, pathetic mush-brain.  165.154.24.56 00:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing is stopping you from writing a treatise about sea cucumbers. You can go ahead, and you won't be stopped. Other editors will correspond with you to check your facts, if you are civil. I'm not threatening Helicoid: because since I do not advocate aetherometry, without his correspondence, the article will be more critical of aetherometry then it should be. If he wants to avoid that, then he should contribute constructively. In order words, I'm not going to spread "lies" about aetherometry, because aetherometry isn't verified in the first place. If I say it isn't "rigorously peer reviewed", and Helicoid isn't there to try to provide sources to prove otherwise, then Helicoid's possible correction will of course, not be present. Ignoble to keep an article out of hatred for its subject matter? Hardly. It's my view, and there's nothing wrong with my vote. It's an opinion. Its hardly being a mush-brain for doing so, perhaps out of spite, but then again, that's eye for an eye, isn't it?

I'd also advise you to know what "fascism" is. Fascism is when the corporations control the state, and wealth rules everything - a plutocracy - and seeing how your scamming of a corporation of aetherometry runs, and your attempts to silence valid opposition on a free encylopedia to your claims, you aetherometrists are hypocrites. State-capitalism like Bolshevism and Maoism which appears aetherometrists love so much, and tute as their "philosophy", and tries to poison the meaning of what anarchism and libertarian socialism is, is a form of fascism. Libertarian socialism is the antithesis of fascism. But then again, you people base your success on fanatical devotion and ignorance, don't you? -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, the little smidgeon wants power! Helicoid.


 * So ignorant about the roots of fascism, little mao-mao. Perhaps the future dictator of Singapore? Helicoid.

Irony++, considering that I'm staunchly opposed to the authoritarian PAP. "Future dictator of Singapore"? As for you, "future successful snake oil vendor", I suppose? If anything, I discourage absolute human rule. -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey! Me too!  Especially absolute human rule of thumb.  165.154.24.56


 * Way to miss the point. -- Natalinasmpf 00:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So young and yet already so advanced in lagging behind, it's more NPOV.209.29.97.147


 * Ad hominem, by the way. Doesn't affect whether aetherometry should be kept or not. As for "lagging behind", you must be quite the conclusion-jumper if you can assert it all from one post. Your paranoid behaviour, and constant ironically, childish attempts to assert your authority, including with all your sockpuppets, over the article is indeed quite fascist. -- Natalinasmpf 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP well, they are -- unsigned comment by 70.58.91.15


 * deleteGeni 00:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * what are we deleting or keeping? can anyone answer that?209.29.97.147 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, oh yes, I can explain. Listen carefully.  We are deleting or keeping a Web page.  Its title is "Aetherometry"; that's fixed.  Its contents, on the other hand, can at any moment be arbitrarily generated, degenerated or modified by anybody who knows how to use a web browser, irrespective of whether or not they can tell the actual science of Aetherometry from a bottle of gin, can form a grammatical sentence, or have any interest in any even vaguely related subject.  And if past experience is any guide, they do this at the rate of an edit every five minutes or so.   There are a lot of people with browsers out there....  165.154.24.56 01:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're arguing against the concept of wiki, do see Replies to common objections, specifically the section marked "Letting arbitrary Internet users edit any article at will is absurd", and its rebuttal to that objection. It isn't "arbitrarily generated" - just as nonsense can easily be put in, it is even easier to remove, considering that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Ironically, YOU - who can edit anything, and could edit that article to be improved right now, are talking right here, and wouldn't be given a voice otherwise. You wouldn't be able to say that this was an "actual science". Britannica and CNN and everywhere else would not listen to your comments. Oh, Wikipedia receives about 40,000 edits each day, so it isn' tabou tan "edit every five minutes or so". Whether or not they can form a grammatical sentence is irrelevant - it can be corrected. Unfortunately, ironically, Helicoid can't even do this properly. So how are you to criticise? If anything, they are at most typos from replies being typed out in haste. I love how Helicoid includes parantheses everywhere, that acutally muck up the paragraph flow. You obviously don't get the concept of what a wiki is. Its peer-reviewed in itself, and far more credible than your crackpot of an "Infinite Energy" "scientific journal".

• DELETE, DELETE, DELETE, DELETE. Natalinasmpf - this is the most shameful behavior I've ever seen on any forum. Disgraceful. Did someone say that the hope for this planet lies in its youth? Well then. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. 4.224.210.129

Its hardly disgraceful. Ironically - your behaviour, discriminating on the basis nothing having to do with character or the actual suject is sheer bigotry. Is it "shameful" if I reject something because its credibility has not been proven? -- Natalinasmpf 01:32, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No. What is shameful and disgraceful is the way it was done.  You-all could have courteously approached the original author.  You could have thanked her for her contribution and explained to her that scientific projects not described in mainstream literature were subject to a special procedure for establishing credibility.  You could have informed her, upfront, exactly what kinds of proofs of credibility were required and in what form.  If the original author could not, or did not care to, furnish the requisite proofs, the matter would end right there,  the article would be deleted, and everybody would have parted on good terms.  If the original author could furnish enough acceptable proof, the next step should have been to give her general guidelines about how to make the article itself accepatble - and then let her, and/or anybody else knowledgeable about the subject and cooperating with the original author, make the changes.   And after that you-all, and everybody who cared about knowledge and information, should have participated in protecting the intergity of the information in the article from subsequent distortion and falsification.


 * That is the way anybody worthy of the name "encyclopedia editor" should have acted. But none of that was done.   Instead, the article was immediately, and without any basis, treated as if it had been submitted in bad faith; the author was treated with derision, contempt and condescension; both the author and the scientists whose work was described in the article were subjected to slander and defamation of character; and a kangaroo-court proceeded to ride haywire on the subject without knowing anything about it, and to replace the article with ignorant derisive  crap.  That's what is shameful and disgraceful.  And even more shameful and disgraceful is that none of you people - you PJacobis, you William Conneleys, you Natalinas', you Mel Etitis' (sounds like a disease), you Karadas', you Guettardas - don't feel any sense of shame about it - no, to the contrary, you feel a sense of holy righteousness.  It's exactly like a Stalinist party rally - I know those rallies, I grew up under Stalinism.  But let me tell you, there are already enough Stalinist encyclopedias in the world - Stalin himself was a great Encyclopedist, you know.  We don't need another one on the Internet.  165.154.24.56 02:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ceasefire. I had some negative and wrong misassumptions about aetherometry, more of concerning the people behind it, than the science itself, which I still doubt. Now, I'm also worried that you have misassumptions of Wikipedia as well. Now I want to ask, why did Helicoid submit this article in the first place? What did you hope to achieve? I am in the process of typing up a lengthy, semi-apolegetic discourse, which of course my stance of it as a fringe science will not change, nor my stance that it needs more peer review and is probably wrong in many areas, although probably insightful - that will not change. But I really hope we can be civil, and to cooperate and rule out the kinks. Now for one thing, I am going to retract some of my previous statements about aetherometry. But that is only if you can agree that some of the behaviour (from several IP's) concerning civility need to change. I'll come up with a full reply later. -- Natalinasmpf 02:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To Natalinasmp. It's a mystery to me why you made such ugly assumptions in the first place, but it seems to me that a full, written public apology and retraction of the slanderous and libelous assertions you have put forward regarding the Correas and their work, in this forum, is the least you could and should do -  and I trust you intend to put that in your full reply?  165.154.24.56 04:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No see, that is the thing that made me think you people were authoritarian and tended to be fascist (although you argue I am and you are not) - you "demand" a full written public apology, and call it "slanderous and libelous". The concept of slander and libel is something invented by authoritarian leaders who can't stand a tarnished reputation and can't stand criticism, and business leaders who are afraid to lose their precious, precious monetary gains. That's fascist. The political opposition in my country are all silenced because the government prosecutes them for slander and libel, and silences the students too, if they try to make any public critique of the government. That's the thing I can't stand. The moment you say its "slanderous and libelous" - I immediately think you are as politically decadent as my government. A good scientist merely shrugs off these claims, or rebuts them with cool. Now, I have agreed to apologise for some things, but I will not do it because you demanded it so, or you asked me to. I do it because this is a comment of my own accord. I'm not doing it because "its the least I should do" - but rather, because I want to reconcile this ugly battle that never should have happened in the first place. I admit I was wrong on some counts, but no its not a "full retraction". Gosh, that sounds a lot like what the Church wanted Galileo to do, wasn't it? -- Natalinasmpf 04:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Natalinas, you're right, it seems that this entire storm was really unnecessary. it's good at least if it made you realize the biased identifications that one is taught to make and how wrong they turn out to be.  maybe that's why the extremes are said to meet, why authoritarians and radical libertarians have something in common. one might hope that that is not putting up with bullies, even though each has different bullies in mind. more commonly, what they have in mind and in common is the brutal exercise of power.209.29.168.136 28 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)


 * delete. Never had a chance nor the interest to observe the inner workings of wikipedia.  Never consult it because it's useless.  Just know that neither Britannica nor any other encyclopedia for that matter, nor any academic, nor librarian nor educator, nor anyone actually interested in a subject would give it the time of day.   I must admit it was a surprise to me though to see just how shockingly bad it really is. Yes delete this article from this looney bin.  Absolutely.  Thanks for drawing my attention to it.  KS


 * Delete - Movie the article over to wikiinfo as per GangofOne's suggestion.   4.249.39.163 05:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For all you peer-review worshippers Abstract: "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science."

Talk about fascism. Peer review is a way to regulate bias and prevent an abusive "authority" (ie. like the Church in the past) from springing up and taking assertion. What do you have to regulate bias then? Meditate on the manner? Appoint a dictator over science? Hmm? Note, I'm sure even aetherometrists agree that peer review is generally a good thing, since when was it not? I mean, you do share papers with each other, no? - Natalinasmpf 05:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep if anyone cares at this point. There's still a chance to reconstruct the original article in a way that situates Aetherometry against comparable mainstream theories, so that at least the reader can grasp the relations and differences and decide whether to find out more, or forget about it. I've read plenty on the subject, and I'll help edit, as long as everyone treats the subject with some respect. Pgio 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's patently obvious that the pjacobi-noble-mission dwarf squads have nothing better to do all day with their time than waste everyone else's. Who has time for these endless idiotic edits and ill-willed smears?  Move the article to wikiinfo where bright  people who aren't too terrified that others might choose to think can go talk about it  - and not spend their precious  time endlessly swatting flies.  4.225.215.117 28 June 2005 19:16 (UTC)


 * Change vote to Keep article in its current form. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  June 28, 2005 21:52 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.