RealDefender
--RealDefender 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)--RealDefender 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)-- edit
--RealDefender 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)--RealDefender 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)-- edit
Hi; thanks for noticing, thanks for looking carefully, and thanks for standing up to be counted.
[Holism in Science], see [1]
- MR. GERGEN: Mm-hmm. Now, your notion is a very provocative one, but it does represent a minority view, I gather, with the scientific community.
- JOHN HORGAN: Oh, definitely...
For a book review, see [2]. See the last paragraph. See also this review of book by John Maddox, editor of “Nature” allegedly written as "an antidote to Horgan". [3]
You might have noticed that there are allegations flying that you're a sock puppet of a banned user. I hope that's not true. Perhaps if it's not, you could identify yourself in confidence to some neutral admin? Just a suggestion. Either way, could you please state for the record that you have absolutely no connection of any sort with me (if that's true of course, as I have no idea who you are) Gleng 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Gleng. You have nothing to worry... I am just some young college student who knows a little html. I had to look up sock puppet.
I personally love the concept of vitalism and felt that the article shouldn't be destroyed by people who don't think it is real. The term as I know it, has nothing to do with scientific journals, peer reviews, or science itself. apparently, there are many perspectives on the topic. - For the record, I am not a banned user. I have never had an account, this is my first one and I plan to keep it. I have made some anon edits in the library last summer and I built the account to add some takes to the vitalism debate. I had a feeling of what was going to happen to the article. I really just liked the work you did there in the end. I don't plan to engage this community in the same fasion again. Still, you fully deserve that barnstar! --RealDefender 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely delighted to hear it. WP needs people like you!!!! If you don't mind a few words of advice:
a) it helps to put a little of yourself on your user page, at least to let people know your particular interests and possible areas of expertise. It's pretty obvious that your facility with images would have been very helpfu for instance to me.
b) There is a way you can claim old edits as yours - not sure how but I know it's possible to have them assigned; again it would help others to see your history here; the more you've contributed, the more seriously you're taken (sometimes anyway).
C) There are some unpleasant editors here for sure, but an awful lot of good kind ones too, who will deeply appreciate integrity and thoughtfulness. Don't be put off; the good guys need your help!.
Gleng 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article edit
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)