User talk:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur

NOR

Astronomer: I've worked with them on determining the moon's composition, and I know they are the experts. - you forgot: No orgininal research! Andy Mabbett 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh pish posh. It's a well needed satire on some users' bad habits. Don't poke holes. Thanatosimii 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I think Andy was being ironic, not serious... Noel (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

A fellow editor sent this to me since I was embroiled in a debate. Thanks for the laugh. haha. I totally relate. :-) --Chris S. 12:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to second the compliments. This is a really funny piece that's also a valuable lesson for us all. Much appreciated and thanks for it. --Shirahadasha 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite for what's not not

No need to cite for a proof of what something is not. If there's no reliable source for it being made of any type of cheese, then it doesn't belong in the article. Don't know why this wasn't mentioned....! --Rebroad 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Aliasing

Can this article get aliased at WP:CHEESE? Digwuren 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the redirect but I believe this is not everything there is to aliasing. Digwuren 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is, actually. Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny, but

This is funny but there is no need to prove that the moon is not made of cheese, no mention of its cheese status should be included at all unless a reliable source can be found one way or the other. The astronomer could just remove the claim and not need to prove its absence of validity, as the burden is on the person wishing to include the info. Until(1 == 2) 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You would be suprised how difficult that can be. Trust me, as someone who regularly edits pages prone to amateurish crankery, it never happens that cleanly. That difficulty is what this page parodies... quite accuratly.... Thanatosimii 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Like I said, much of this dialogue was taken almost verbatim from real revents here on Wikipedia. E.g. after I uploaded Image:InetCirca85.jpg, the nitwit I was arguing with (who has since left Wikipedia - ironic, since dealing with him caused me to leave) gave me grief about the caption I placed on it; and when I pointed out that it was from an presentation at the IETF, thereby confirming the date, because the presentation had a humorous title he gave me grief about that too. It's amazing how mindlessly obstructive some people can be. Noel (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking,

The tag on top says this parodies another essay. It doesn't; it parodies behavior. Is there a more accurate tag, or are we just stuck with this one as the best avalable? Thanatosimii 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Russell's teapot

The Russell's teapot seems to be the point of the amateur... --Nemo bis (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Presents a valid point

This was pretty funny to read, and I also think it highlights a true point. No offence meant to any Wikipedians, but at times you guys seem positively phobic about any information that doesn't have a citation. Not complaining or anything, WP is still one of the best sources of online info I know. :) Just felt like pointing it out. 87.34.21.246 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is sort of the point though. The phobia is what makes wikipedia such a good source of information. If you don't have that rule then anything can go in and we end up like Fox News. Humerousness aside though, and I do get that it's not supposed to be taken seriously, I think that the essay is pretty misleading as to the nature of Wikipedia. It not only implies that claims have to be refuted otherwise they are included, it also implies that original research is acceptable as a source. For a new editor trying to find their feet and takes this seriously, this could set them on the wrong path from the start. Again, I get that it's supposed to be funny but is it impossible for it to be funny, and accurate as well? Robinr22 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant to say 'CBS News', right? Noel (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that why we have the "humourous" tag at the top - to tell people not to take it seriously? 87.34.21.167 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading this made me sad

Reading this made me sad. BigNate37_(T) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You should have tried living through it... :-( Noel (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny and educational!

What do you mean the moon isn't made of cheese?! Next, you'll be saying the man in the moon doesn't exist or disputing the fact that a cow did indeed jump over it! Chick in a TARDIS (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of relevant links

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise and Dunning–Kruger effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

But what is green cheese made of?

The amateur missed a perfect opportunity to point out that a chart showing that "it's made (after oxygen) of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron" doesn't rule out the possibility that it's made of green cheese, since green cheese is not a chemical element. We would need to know the chemical composition of green cheese as the next step towards determining whether or not the moon is made of it. — Smjg (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Teaching rhetorics

I've explained the "green cheese-argument" to my daughter. She gets a devilish grin on her face when she recalls it. Great first lesson in rhetorics! Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Most Excellent

Thank you for making me laugh. I looked up the person who was debating with you and he also is on a break. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barberio Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)