User talk:Mvaneech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Aquatic ape hypothesis, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this sock puppet investigation. My apologies, I should have informed you earlier. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report censorship on wikipedia, by anonymous people like Dominus Vobisdu. Fact: the most recent information on this hypothesis can be found in the book I want to add to this page. This is prohibited, blocked, boycotted and the page is closed for editing by some anonymous somebody, claiming to know how science works and making unsupported false allegations regarding the reliability of Bentham e-books. Although I have countered this clearly, the censorship continues, and in comments of Dominus Vobisdu it is even proposed as if I have understood my error and ceased my efforts to quote our book (while I and others were simply blocked to do so)... Rather incredible and scary.

But moreover: Whatever the reliability of the publisher (which I confirmed), or whether this is a self published book (which it is not), whether the contributors are nonacademical fantasts (which they are not), and whatever (flawed) criticism: this is not really at stake. If Wikipedia has a page on this hypothesis, the interested reader wants to be guided to the most recent information available. He/she can just for him/herself on the value, and should not be blocked from this opportunity by some anonymous 'editor' of wikipedia. What happens now is pure censorship.

I have replaced the last version, which was not presenting the arguments of this hypothesis, but which was in fact a long negative and flawed criticism of it, by a previous (somewhat more neutral) version, to which I added again the justified link to our book.

Sincere regards Mario Vaneechoutte Professor Molecular Microbiology University of Ghent Belgium

Do you need some assistance? If you believe some Wikipedia policy has been violated and can't work out the problem on your own, you should use dispute resolution rather than the helpme template. Danger! High voltage! 18:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something showing how unreliable Bentham is [1]. The journal TOISCI whcih accepted the 'CRAP' paper is part of the Bentham collection. I'm supporting including bits of your book where the authors are respected authorities but not the book overall, having such a source causes problems. Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anonymous dmcq

Just check wikipedia for similar, well-known, stories: [2]. This kind of trick can happen to the best respected journals. Moreover, can you hold responsible Bentham for every mistake in its hundreds of journals and dismiss the publisher as such? I repeat: what about the respectability of a journal like Nature, which published crap such as the proof of cold fusion and the proof of homeopathy....? We should dismiss the journal, its publisher and of course all the other journals of this publisher.

Moreover and once again: the credibility of Bentham (which is not a problem, as you want us to make believe) is not what matters here: some of you think the aquatic ape hypothesis is crap, and that is why this wiki page is mutilated with flawed criticisms and now even censorship, instead of simply presenting the most recent views on it. If the hypothesis is crap anyway in your opinion, give its proponents the opportunity to refer to a book they published with a crappy publisher. What else would you expect from people who hold crappy ideas like us? But at least: give the reader of wiki the possibility to learn about the existence of this book, however crappy the publisher or the hypothesis may be, so he/she can justify for him/herself the value of the hypothesis. If not, it is better to remove this page from wikipedia.

Wouldn't it be possible to have an aquatic ape hypothesis page that is approved by its proponents, whereby in the first paragraph we immediately refer to an aquatic ape criticism page, where opponents can bring together all their objections. This would enable to keep separate both opinions, whereas now this page is not informative at all for any of both views.

This is not the sort of thing that happens to good journals. They might let through some deceit by mistake but not complete nonsense. As to having separate articles written by proponents and detractors, in a word, no. That is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Articles should be written neutrally using the available sources and stuff that does not have reasonable support should be described as such. I do believe many of the fringe noticeboard crowd in Wikipedia misinterpret policy and did so badly for this article, but the article seems to be heading back towards a more straightforward description at the moment as far as I can see. The contents need to be backed by reliable sources and self published books simply don't satisfy that criterion. As I said above if a person can be shown to be a respected authority the opinions in part should I believe be reasonable for summarizing but the stuff having been in that book has definitely caused problems as some take the rules as meaning all he book should be excluded which I don't agree with. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply of Mario Vaneechoutte: You wrote: "This is not the sort of thing that happens to good journals. They might let through some deceit by mistake but not complete nonsense." Apparently you did not read my answer, where I point to good journals to which this happened (with an example from wikipedia!) and to a journal such as Nature that published complete nonsense at several occasions.

You wrote: "Articles should be written neutrally using the available sources " Well, that is what I am asking for: a neutrally written article, whereby emphasis is on what the hypothesis says instead of having to read a long and flawed criticism AND: 'using the available sources', which is exactly what is not possible because of your censorship.

You wrote: "I do believe many of the fringe noticeboard crowd " Oops, as far as I know, most people who know my work consider me as a respectable academic instead of fringe crowd. Opinions may differ, of course

You wrote: "The contents need to be backed by reliable sources and self published books simply don't satisfy that criterion." You seem to confuse books and journals. For most books, editors invite authors and act as peer reviewers. That is what happened for this book as well. Practically seen: please be consequent and please remove all other 'self published books' from Wikipedia. Sincere thanks.

You wrote: "As I said above if a person can be shown to be a respected authority" Well, do you have criteria to decide when a person is a respected authority? For example, was Albert Einstein a respected authority when he published his first manuscripts, which already were revolutionary? No, he wasn't, and so according to your 'standard', it should never have been published. These arguments really make no sense. What a waste of time.

~~Mario Vaneechoutte~~

Please engage a bit better with what Wikipedia is about. It is not a journal, it is an encyclopaedia. See WP:5P, it covers practically everything said here. Nature has published stuff from authors who have been engaged in deceit or just misled themselves but they have not published complete rubbish except in the sense that the stuff was untrue. Bentham publishes nonsense in the sense of Edward Lear. I'm not saying all their stuff is like that but they just don't seem to take peer review seriously.

Mario Vaneechoutte reply: An encyclopedia indeed. I thought an encyclopedia should inform its readers about most recent information available. It should not block contributors that are trying to do so and that are referring to a book that is validly published as thousands of other books are.

By the fringe noticeboard people I mean the people who police fringe articles. Many of them seem to believe Wikipedia should not contain fringe material and try and remove it even when it is notable and well cited. Your contributions show you as interested in the Aquatic Ape hypothesis and not in the fringe noticeboard.
The book was self published rather than the publisher paying to produce it. I have seen no evidence the contents were peer reviewed.

Mario Vaneechoutte reply: I can't recall that I have ever found evidence in any book about peer review. Where do you find that kind of information? The peer review of our book was by the editors (me, Verhaegen and Kuliukas), as is usually done in most books, in my experience as an author of chapters in other books.

Albert Einstein was published in peer reviewed journals. People who have a number of peer reviewed publications on a topic or a significant number of citations in reliable sources are considered authorities. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Vaneechoutte reply: That was later. He was not a 'well respected' authority, and he was not even in the 'notice of the academic world', when he published four groundbreaking papers (see below, excerpt from Wikipedia). On the basis of your criteria, this should not have been published. Excerpt from Wikipedia page on Einstein: "During 1901, the paper "Folgerungen aus den Kapillarität Erscheinungen" ("Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena") was published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik.[37] On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich. His dissertation was entitled "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions".[38][39] That same year, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of matter and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world."

We usually sign contributions at the end with ~~~~, that sticks in the name and time.
I think you are getting it now. If Einstein had published his stuff in 2005 in a blog or self published book and Wikipedia was around then it would not have been put into Wikipedia.
About peer review, that means reasonably independent, not the editors just saying the stuff they chose is fine. The self published is the part that gives problems here, if somebody else commissioned the book or paid for the book it indicates somebody else thought it was worthwhile. Books in general don't have a high standing unless the author is an authority or it has been cited a lot, but self published books fall beneath the marker for use as sources without something else to show they are good sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mvaneech[edit]

User:Mvaneech, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mvaneech and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mvaneech during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mvaneech&oldid=877321373"