Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Impact event, you may be
blocked from editing.
SkepticalRaptor (
talk)
18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary I think it appears to be you that has the problem with a neutral viewpoint. The YD impact event was heralded as discredited but the papers I have cited provide a balance to your view. If there is a problem with my latest citations then discuss them by all means but deleting them is hardly appropriate.
To recount my ammendments I wrote:
[1] as well as new evidence from Mexico (Israde-Alcántara et al 2012) [2] This is further supported by the discovery (Kurbatov et al 2010) of the presence of a rich layer of nanodiamonds which include lonsdaleite, an element known to form in high-temperature and high-pressure conditions, in the Greenland ice sheet coinciding with this date. [3] . The latest independent evaluation (LeCompte et al 2012) criticises the Surovell [4] research protocol on which the discrediting of the impact theory was based and found abundant YDB microspherules supporting the possibility of impact [5] so the dispute remains a heated one; largely centering on the equally fiercely contested overkill theory fraught with problems and lack of evidence. The idea recently purported(Sorovell et al 2012) that one should expect little evidence to support overkill in this period and that is exactly what we find, was effectively dismissed in 2002 (by Grayson et al) as questionable [6] . The debate remains therefore very much open.
These are relevant to the debate and hardly disruptive. They were made in good faith to provide recent counter argument to the idea the impact hypothesis is discredited.
I added some citations including latest reseacrh re the Pleistocene impact hypothesis. They were removed. I was warned by Skeptical Raptor and accused of being disruptive. On the contrary I think it appears to be Skeptical Raptor that has the problem with a neutral viewpoint. The YD impact event was heralded as discredited but the papers I have cited provide a balance to his view. If there is a problem with my latest citations then discuss them by all means but deleting them and sending an aggresive message is hardly appropriate.
To recount my ammendments I wrote and have been deleted by Skpetical Raptor:
[1] as well as new evidence from Mexico (Israde-Alcántara et al 2012) [2] This is further supported by the discovery (Kurbatov et al 2010) of the presence of a rich layer of nanodiamonds which include lonsdaleite, an element known to form in high-temperature and high-pressure conditions, in the Greenland ice sheet coinciding with this date. [3] . The latest independent evaluation (LeCompte et al 2012) criticises the Surovell [4] research protocol on which the discrediting of the impact theory was based and found abundant YDB microspherules supporting the possibility of impact [5] so the dispute remains a heated one; largely centering on the equally fiercely contested overkill theory fraught with problems and lack of evidence. The idea recently purported(Sorovell et al 2012) that one should expect little evidence to support overkill in this period and that is exactly what we find, was effectively dismissed in 2002 (by Grayson et al) as questionable [6] . The debate remains therefore very much open.
These are relevant to the debate and hardly disruptive. They were made in good faith to provide recent counter argument to the idea the impact hypothesis is discredited.
|
Hi Icecore1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/14/1204453109.full.pdf
- ^ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Mexico%20YD%20Paper.pdf
- ^ http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ers_facpub/175/
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0907857106
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/12/1208603109.abstract?sid=d9f61241-6cd7-46d8-aeb3-f32959ae140b
- ^ http://faculty.washington.edu/grayson/jwp02.pdf
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Impact event, you may be
blocked from editing.
SkepticalRaptor (
talk)
18:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary I think it appears to be you that has the problem with a neutral viewpoint. The YD impact event was heralded as discredited but the papers I have cited provide a balance to your view. If there is a problem with my latest citations then discuss them by all means but deleting them is hardly appropriate.
To recount my ammendments I wrote:
[1] as well as new evidence from Mexico (Israde-Alcántara et al 2012) [2] This is further supported by the discovery (Kurbatov et al 2010) of the presence of a rich layer of nanodiamonds which include lonsdaleite, an element known to form in high-temperature and high-pressure conditions, in the Greenland ice sheet coinciding with this date. [3] . The latest independent evaluation (LeCompte et al 2012) criticises the Surovell [4] research protocol on which the discrediting of the impact theory was based and found abundant YDB microspherules supporting the possibility of impact [5] so the dispute remains a heated one; largely centering on the equally fiercely contested overkill theory fraught with problems and lack of evidence. The idea recently purported(Sorovell et al 2012) that one should expect little evidence to support overkill in this period and that is exactly what we find, was effectively dismissed in 2002 (by Grayson et al) as questionable [6] . The debate remains therefore very much open.
These are relevant to the debate and hardly disruptive. They were made in good faith to provide recent counter argument to the idea the impact hypothesis is discredited.
I added some citations including latest reseacrh re the Pleistocene impact hypothesis. They were removed. I was warned by Skeptical Raptor and accused of being disruptive. On the contrary I think it appears to be Skeptical Raptor that has the problem with a neutral viewpoint. The YD impact event was heralded as discredited but the papers I have cited provide a balance to his view. If there is a problem with my latest citations then discuss them by all means but deleting them and sending an aggresive message is hardly appropriate.
To recount my ammendments I wrote and have been deleted by Skpetical Raptor:
[1] as well as new evidence from Mexico (Israde-Alcántara et al 2012) [2] This is further supported by the discovery (Kurbatov et al 2010) of the presence of a rich layer of nanodiamonds which include lonsdaleite, an element known to form in high-temperature and high-pressure conditions, in the Greenland ice sheet coinciding with this date. [3] . The latest independent evaluation (LeCompte et al 2012) criticises the Surovell [4] research protocol on which the discrediting of the impact theory was based and found abundant YDB microspherules supporting the possibility of impact [5] so the dispute remains a heated one; largely centering on the equally fiercely contested overkill theory fraught with problems and lack of evidence. The idea recently purported(Sorovell et al 2012) that one should expect little evidence to support overkill in this period and that is exactly what we find, was effectively dismissed in 2002 (by Grayson et al) as questionable [6] . The debate remains therefore very much open.
These are relevant to the debate and hardly disruptive. They were made in good faith to provide recent counter argument to the idea the impact hypothesis is discredited.
|
|
Hi Icecore1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/14/1204453109.full.pdf
- ^ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Mexico%20YD%20Paper.pdf
- ^ http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ers_facpub/175/
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0907857106
- ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/12/1208603109.abstract?sid=d9f61241-6cd7-46d8-aeb3-f32959ae140b
- ^ http://faculty.washington.edu/grayson/jwp02.pdf