Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence

Evidence statement presented by {User:Reddi}
Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. Fringe science can be protoscience but holds to the norms of the scientific method. Psuedoskeptics call the vast majority of protoscience "psuedoscience". I do show great diligence in digging up references (obscure and common) as per Cite sources, Verifiability, No original research. _This_ is in accordance with those policies.

I do not understand what the problem some have (especially the psuedoskeptics) with including information from researchers or people conducted worked in a scientific field or from Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, James Maxwell, or people that have studied thier work. A complete subjective judgement on including information and facts does not accord with the rule of editing an article without bias describing debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and _then_ cite that source. As in Ark of the Covenant (and many other articles), a verifiable and respectable source *should* be included (name calling "psuedo-scientists" and the "Teslaphiles" is not a conducive in this process). Just because something is verifiably said by someone (especially if they are respected in thier community), _does mean_ it can be added in wiki. Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia.

I will 'deny' discussing request on edits with other editors primarily if the make personal attacks upon me (and other violations of the Writers' rules of engagement). I do discuss it with other editors that are not "apologists", "Pseudoskeptics", or "Trolls".

As to making "edits made without comment" ... yes ... not every edit I make is commented. But if that is one of the worst things, I see nothing that I can do about my faulty memory or lack of something to comment on. Provide an edit summary is one of Wikipedia's "guideline" ... but not a pillar. I try not to revert the same page _more_ than *three times* on the same day, but there is nothing "heavy" about that ... and this is clearly within the acceptable policies of Wikipedia. If there is a more than a triplaicate reversion the same page on the same day, I usually am blocked for 24 hr ... but this is not a usual case.

Sincerely, JDR 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

=End statement=