Talk:Tom Van Flandern

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tom Van Flandern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929022056/http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/winners_year.html to http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/winners_year.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104212720/http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp to http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130407233124/http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp to http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp
*Added  tag to http://metaresearch./
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021123170349/http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp to http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327225237/http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp to http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tom Van Flandern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120071353/http://astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib03.html to http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Van Flandern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001230512/http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1974/vanflandern.pdf to http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1974/vanflandern.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305092902/http://remarkableohio.org/historicalmarker.aspx?fileid=138463&historicalmarkerid=106264 to http://www.remarkableohio.org/HistoricalMarker.aspx?historicalMarkerId=106264&fileId=138463
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I reverted a bulk revision to the article that removed many facets of the subject's career. I believe that each of these edits deserves a discussion on if it should stay or go or needs to be improved. In the spirit of wikipedia's Bold-revert-discuss guideline, I have reverted the bold edits, now let's discuss them. StarHOG (Talk) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Tom Van Flandern. - DVdm (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

text: What is there to discuss? You can't just say, WP:BRD GO! You have to explain what the problem is. jps (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Which will be difficult, because the edits were fine. Merging references, cutting unduly-weighted and poorly-sourced material, trimming a link farm — I can see no problem with any of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I wonder why wikipedia has that entire section on Bold edit, revert, discuss if some editors just think that edits are great and don't need to be discussed? I mean, if you don't see anything wrong with an edit, personally, why would you want to follow wikipedia guidelines and discuss it with other editors? And when they complain about it, just throw it back in their face telling them you're not following the guidelines and if they have a problem with that, they can state their reasons why. StarHOG (Talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to let us know what your concerns are. We're waiting. jps (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  My concern is we're not following wikipedia guidelines. Let's figure that out before anything else. StarHOG (Talk) 23:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Why not follow the guidelines? A call for consensus, which has not been done here yet, is not a vote of the majority to bypass the guidelines. I'm not a wikipedia historian, but something in my bones tells me that these guidelines were put in place for this very reason, so that one or two editors that think their right don't walk all over other editors, that there is a process to be followed and it doesn't change because of how many editors line up on one side of an issue. StarHOG (Talk) 12:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't call the string of edits , , , , ,  a bold edit, as two editors were involved. I'd rather call your undo (with an i.m.o. unfriendly, uninviting edit summary) the bold edit, which I then undid with an invitation to go discuss on the talk page. I now count four editors who think the trimmed version is better than the original, so I think it will be more productive to discuss the article here, rather than our interpretations of the BRD policy supplement. - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text:   isn't this what WP:CONSENSUS is about?  —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I mean, the point is that this guy wrote a library about all the different things he thought were wrong with the "mainstream". The current article makes it clear that this is his approach. Lovingly detailing all his claims is obviously WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. What we can do is pay attention to those ideas which have received significant outside notice. All that was removed was stuff that was solely sourced to Van Flandern's own writing. WP:PSTS should be at least considered in our editorial decisions. jps (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Let's have a diff then so we are clear what we are discussing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy to see from the history, but here's the difference after recent edits:  —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will take a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revisions