User talk:ScienceApologist

Hello, ScienceApologist, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing! Griffinofwales (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ScienceApologist![change source]

Hello, ScienceApologist. Thank you very much for your message: I noticed with admiration that you were very quick to add good references and correct articles on science, like on the theory of the Big Bang. Maybe you're right about the creationist book, it's very kind of you to tell me frankly. I'll see what administrators have to say about it. I hope I can still use it, though, as I never use those books to argue against evolution or mention God or creationism: I try my best to write neutrally. Please feel free to tell me if you think I did not write neutrally enough, and I'll try to correct it. Thank you again for your notice and concern, and I hope you have a fun time here! Yours sincerely, Classical Esther 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing back so promptly and civilly! I am honored to meet someone as good at science as you. Thank you for your good advice, which I will certainly use. Yours sincerely, Classical Esther 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[change source]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Everyone is welcome to change pages here. We ask that you do not remove things from pages, as you did to "Moon landing conspiracy theory", without giving a good reason in the change summary. If this was a mistake, do not worry. The change you made has been undone. If you want to practice changing Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did provide reasons in the edit summary if you look. Kansan (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceApologist Could you tell me why? are you removing a lot of information from the article. It seems that you are just removing but not expanding ;-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reliably sourced. See WP:RS ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While from what I've seen it appears that these sources are unreliable, it would probably be best to explain on the according talk page what sources are removed and what makes them unreliable. I am glad that you're taking a look at this page, by the way, as it seems like a massive NPOV violation. Kansan (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, apparently. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and explained that the sources lack trustworthyness since they are all done to non-experts who believe in hoax conspiracy theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]