Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

telepathy

Hi, without the "telepathy-type interconnections" quote there's no explanation why his work would involve telepathy and parapsychology. The reader should know their relationship to morphic resonance in order to bring context to the next paragraph about morphic resonance. vzaak (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out the reason for removing the quote that connects morphic resonance to telepathy and parapsychology. With the subsequent changes the connection is still erased. vzaak (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I also don't understand the wikilinks to parapsychological genetic memory and paranormal collective consciousness. Sheldrake actually argues against the former, saying that genes are not the carrier of memory. And the connection to Gardner Murphy, the latter, eludes me. Sheldrake does talk about collective unconscious, but apparently one of a different flavor. Also, the new material in "Academic career" starts with a quote from an interview in 2000, then indents with a quote from his 1981 book (now reproduced on his website), then unindents back to the 2000 interview. I appreciate the work you've done, and I don't want to sound too critical, but I'm perplexed by these recent edits. vzaak (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Until August 2013 the lead did not even describe morphic resonance. Adding the two direct quotes from here was easy and seemed to suffice; the quotes ultimately come from Presence of the Past and A New Science of Life. It's very hard to go wrong with the author's own words which are attributed to him ("according to Sheldrake..."). On the other hand, "paranormal interconnectedness" directly mischaracterizes his view in the first paragraph, as Sheldrake is adamant that telepathy is not paranormal. vzaak (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have edited accordingly. It also solves a prose problem that had been bothering me. "Interconnectedness" is scarcely a word at all. In my ear it seems akin to calling human interaction "interfacing" or the act of writing a book "authorizing." If we're to use a variant of "interconnectedness," I'm much happier to have it in Shaldrake's voice than in Misplaced Pages's. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. It was just "mysterious" that bothered you? It's the same as the original now, but without "mysterious". "Cherry-picking the most derogatory words, putting them in the lede" is inexplicably harsh treatment for the process I described above. I still don't understand the issue starting from the beginning of this thread. vzaak (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely doing a lousy job of explaining myself. Your first two comments in this thread (9/26) were a response to a bad edit I made late at night on the 25th. I woke up the next morning, read your posts, and re-edited with a specific edit summary refering to "after a good night's sleep and some good talk page advice" - or language very close to that anyway.

This time, my edit was a response to your most recent posting to my page. (10/5) You immediately improved on my response, with a good edit summary. That's why I was sending you a "thank" at the same time you were sending me a new frustrated plea for explanation.

"Mysterious" was not my big concern. My concern was that the whole quote, as first configured, didn't reveal to the casual reader (ie one who doesn't read footnotes carefully) that the words were not the harsh criticism of an antagonist, but rather the author's own self-effacing explanation.

If someone calls me a blind squirel who occasionally finds a nut, that's a harsh insult. If I say the same exact words about myself, it's an acknowledgement of fallibility. That was my objection, not the words themselves, but the relative opacity of their source. I tried to solve that problem - and think I succeeded - with the block-quote further down, but was still left with "paranormal interconnectedness", which I purposely left for another day.

As for "paranormal interconnectedness", my biggest trouble with it was the word "interconnectedness", which sounded like dreadful prose to me. A stylistic problem. Yours was with "paranormal", a much bigger problem, about which I was blithely oblivious.

With any luck, I've made myself clearer. Given Murphy's Law, probably not. I'm hoping Murphy's on furlough today. David in DC (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I get the concern about the possibility of Sheldrake being self-effacing. He could be describing how his colleagues viewed his ideas in order to convey why they did not accept them. However the context is "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species", and the "collective memories within species" part is dead serious -- that's how he describes it for real. Searching through Dogs That Know indicates the quote is OK (although the details have changed over the years (used to be resonance, then fields as channels (which may be the same as resonance, I don't know))).

I don't understand the attribution issue because the original said "according to Sheldrake", and the footnotes show Sheldrake's name as well. vzaak (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. ESpecially after re-reading my diff. All I can say is that the fact that the second quote had a different citation made me think "According to Sheldrake" applied only to what came before it the first ref and that despite the second footnote clearly showing that the rest of the sentence is also "according to Sheldrake", I didn't get it. It was not a failure of attribution, it was my failure of careful reading. David in DC (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you like computer porn

User_talk:Citation_bot#September_2013 EEng (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Null, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reality check, please.

Is this as thoroughly outrageous as I think. Because, as you can see, I'm appalled. David in DC (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'd have to be more specific about how you are appalled. I visited the talkpage of the Sheldrake article, and left a few notes -- prohibited from actually making my edits due to indefinite censorship as ordered by the Reichstag for ideas not conducive to the propagation of all that is good and true in this world to the masses. I saw you there, making sense I might add, and saw some mentions of Tumbleman, but not actually any comments by them. Like myself, they are interested in wikipedia's mechanisms as a phenomenon... and like myself, they believe that wikipedia's handling of Controversial Subjects is anything but NPOV. Articles tend to be simply WP:OWN battlegrounds, where people with a POV prevent any changes to the article, and talkpage discussions devolve into sniping and grudge-matches, between opposing sides of the controversial issue. Sometimes, adding a neutral uninvolved editor -- which literally means, somebody who thinks the dispute is small potatoes and that the important thing is everybody on both sides backing away from the knives... can be helpful.

   Example of what I mean: about ten years ago, there was some teevee show that I happened to see, where some kid inherited the traditional scottish lairdship position by accident -- largely a formality, in real life. Of course, on the teevee, the lairdship's duty to resolve disputes was invoked by some of the local land tenants, who had long engaged in a feud concerning ownership of a pair of sheep, for nearly a decade, based on whether the ram and ewe coupled on one side of the plot-division, or on the other. So, the two bitter enemies bring their case to the laird, each saying they ought to be the rightful WP:OWNer of the pair of sheep, and that the other person was dishonest and not to be trusted and would say anything to win. The young laird, already put out at being forced to act as the dispute resolution noticeboard for this agricultural spat (being a teevee show he was busy elsewhere wooing the attentions of *four* drop-dead beautiful young women), decided the case by claiming ownership of the pair belonged to the laird, by ancient tradition of eminent domain, and ordering both sheep slaughtered immediately, so that the feud would be ended. The two ranchers, abashed as such wastefulness, both immediately come forward to say, that they would rather the other, their bitter enemy to date, keep the pair, then have the pair destroyed. The laird says fine, then the farmer on the left keeps the sheep on the left, and the farmer on the right keeps the sheep on the right, and never bother me again with your feuds, I have women to woo. The ranchers shake hands, and go off into the sunset... you can hear them begin to argue about which of the sheep is better as they fade into the distance, but it is a more-friendly argument. Oh, and the laird does *not* get the girls; they instead get together, and mutually decide he is not worthy of their charms.

   Anyhoo, metaphors about splitting wool over the content of articles aside, my guess is that Tumbleman sees himself in the same role as the laird on teevee. I don't see myself in that role, because I think it's important to get the girl in the end, and the laird totally failed, so I trust the teevee to guide my behavior. (I see myself as Iron Chef -- who always gets the girls.) What in particular is appalling here? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The page as it stood when I made this edit is what I found appalling. David in DC (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes... if you think tumbleman meant "case-study" in the psychoanalysis sense of the term (and since you've seen them in action and I haven't I'll take your word on it). But it sounds like, to my ears anyhoo, they're a wiki-software-programmer-type, so more likely they meant "case-study" in the way that I'm interpreting the phrase, namely, as a use case study, which is a pretty traditional software engineering technique. Cf user story. They might also have meant it in the harvard biz school sense. Over on my talkpage, I have a one or two such case-studies, by which I mean, examples of wikipedia users interacting, via the wiki-software. But most of my use-case-studies are spread around randomly, on talkpages of folks I ran into, or similar. My big project to WP:RGW is to try and improve how the wiki-software works. Starting with bots. (In *that* saga no use-case-study was needed... I was both the subject and the observer. Nutty frustrating bots, too.)

   Now, there's a distinction between studying the edit-history of a page, and coming up with wiki-software-features thataway, and actually *participating* in the action. Tumblerman definitely was picking pages to visit, and tracking what happened there, and being involved in what happened there, as well. I kinda do that sometimes, but not as a way to study the humans on the pages... my interest is in trying to figure out how wikipedia works. (Which is, as you are pretty well aware, not the same as what WP:PG let along WP:Five_pillars claim it is supposed to work like.) In the long run, once I have a stronger personal understanding of how collaborative editing works in practice -- to include the Charley page, the Rupert page, and maybe twenty other pages I've dropped in on as a member of the Mediation Cabal -- eventually that deeper knowledge will be useful to me in designing and implementing some new wiki-tools or wiki-features. But that's not my short-term goal; my short-term goal is to improve WP:RETENTION by acting on the WikiLove impulse. Adopting beginners and schooling them in the ways of the wiki, trying to settle contentious editing-wars with objectivity, and so on. I've had mixed results. I've also lost any illusions I once held about wikipedia being run by a kindly staff of wizened editors, skilled in dispensing wikiLove at all times, and wikiJustice only when required. This place is *not* being run well, and plenty of people have lost sight of the end-goals, and there may be no end in sight.

   On the plus side, I've met quite a few editors that I enjoy -- yourself, flyer22, besieged, liz, pirsquared, and many more. I definitely have not yet figured out how to win the WP:NICE war, which is to say, how to convince folks to get back to basics, and follow WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYBIO, WP:NICE, and WP:BLP ... which I'm pretty sure will lead directly to WP:RETENTION... but I'm still full of wikithusiasm, and have a thick skin and a lot of gumption. So there is hope. All I really need, is to figure out how to tighten up my standard WP:WALLOFTEXT verbosity... to include this message.  :-/      Anyhoo, thanks for listening, and let me know if you're worried I'm out to psychoanalyze you as an unwitting humanoid in my scheme to take over the world. Well, I guess I can speak bluntly -- morphic resonance has already informed me that you are the one with schemes to take over the world, suburbo-dad. But your ray-of-MPB has no effect on me, I have neutralized it with psychical R&D. Seriously, though, if you are worried that my use case stuff is crossing over into the scary zone, please clue me in. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Think I figured out what was going on here, at least, roughly. See above -- User_talk:David_in_DC#FYI. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. One thing I forgot to mention... when you told tumbleman they were not supposed to treat other editors as a psychological-case-study, you pointed at WP:NOTCASE, but that policy is saying that *articles* should not be harvard-biz-school-type-case-studies. In fact, WP:NOTCASE is the reason we're going to have a hard time at AfC concerning Books about travel with canines, that I could not remember where I'd seen it before. (As for tumbleman, using wikipedia as a source for debating-partners, with hidden long-term intentions that are not building-an-encyclopedia, is a violation of WP:NOTHERE.) This is the NOTCASE snippet, which means your assumption that we need a solid scholarly article specifically manifesting the notability of works-about-journeys-with-canines. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor-X-to-factor-Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation-X-in-location-Y, or version-X-of-item-Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Island fox" are fitting examples. Writing about "oak trees in North Carolina" or a "blue truck", however, would likely constitute a POV fork, or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

Brunei

Hi there, I'm just wondering if "Recognized" is suitable to describe English on the Info-box in regards to the reference used on footnote(b) which has got to do with section (2) of Article 82 on the Consitution http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LOB/cons_doc/dokumen-dokumen_perlembagaan_2008.pdf Alevero987 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems uncontroversial to me, but I should hasten to add that I know very little about what's controversial about Brunei and what's not. The use of the language of the former colonial power is sometimes a very controversial topic in former colonies. I see two possible approaches:

A) Post the edit, per WP:BOLD, and then don't get upset if someone reverts it and then initiates a civil conversation under WP:BRD to try to reach consensus.

B) Ask the same question you've asked me on the talk page first, and be guided by any replies.

I've stricken my advice. After reviewing the page history, it looks like you're alread at the "D" step in WP:BRD. Don't re-insert the edit without achieving consensus on the talk page. Definitely don't edit-war. If consensus proves impossible, there are multiple avenues for dispute resolution on wikipedia. Here's a guide: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution

I'm honored, and a little bit humbled, that you've asked my advice. Thanks for the morning pick-me-up.

Good luck and happy editing. David in DC (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PTSD (Post-Dramatic Sockpuppet Disorder)

Wow! How those traumatic memories linger! Just seeing a username beginning with "Ry" gave me heart palpitations. EEng (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S Since I mentioned you:

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Institute of Noetic Sciences may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World''], ], New York City|New York]] (2007). ISBN 978-0-7432-7695-7</ref> ],<ref name=Radin2/> ], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Bracketbot, I'm David in DC. You're so big and strong! ... ;) EEng (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Hussy! :) David in DC (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured

Your good faith is not wasted. I just have a tendency to be over dramatic :) - thanks for the good help effort on the article. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was. And I'm sorely peeved about it. David in DC (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Misplaced Pages and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you could read my mind / what a tale my Talkpage would tell...

I'm beginning to think my psychiatrist wasn't so far off when he said I had psychotic abilities. After all, if there's no such think as telepathy, what then explains that you made this edit three minutes before I made this edit ? Huh? HUH? EEng (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. When I went to thank you, I looked above on your page. I then went to the AfD. But fret not. This is only one datum. I'm sure there are many more pointing the other way. Trust the pshrink. :) David in DC (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why appeal to Occam's Razor when telepathy is so much simpler an explanation? EEng (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to tell David that Occam's Razor, applied properly, leads us to explain almost *everything* in terms of telepathy, but EEng read my mind, and beat me to it by a few minutes. 19406, by my calculations, if you want to get all scientific and technical about it. Gotta go, I sense that somebody needed me on another page, a few minutes ago. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yo

Hi, a while ago you made some really good edits to the Sheldrake article which brought more balance and better prose to the article. We seemed to be pretty much on the same page (sorry for the pun).

Thus I'm puzzled by your complaint about my statement here. (BTW you should have notified me for being mentioned in an ANI.) I would like to focus on this because it seems to highlight whatever the issue is. To me, the comment you show is a totally non-noteworthy, uninteresting statement on my part. It's a generic response to obvious violations of WP:NPOV, namely WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Again we're not even talking about WP:FRINGE here; this is just NPOV. I was paraphrasing NPOV when I said, "Your new stab runs afoul of NPOV because it obfuscates the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community".

The analogy I mentioned is a good one, I think. "Teach the controversy" is highly effective propaganda which appeals to people's innate sense of fairness in controversial matters. However, as we know, the reality of the situation is quite different: the vast, overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no controversy. There is simply no debate regarding evolution vs creationism/intelligent design, as far as the scientific community is concerned.

A very similar thing is happening with the intro you had proposed. It eschews the overwhelming view of the scientific community and introduces the framing of "controversy" and "debate". The Discovery Institute and Sheldrake proponents both seek "controversy" framing, in different contexts. I'm not anti-Sheldrake in any hard sense -- he's a nice guy --, however we are obliged to represent the mainstream scientific view in an honest manner. That's really what WP:NPOV, particularly WP:PSCI, means here. Portraying "controversy" where little or none exists is a disservice to readers, even with the aim of being nicer.

Contrary to what you perhaps to think of me, I am all for being nicer in the lead. There must be some way to make it better, but it can't be the dishonest way of misrepresenting mainstream views. Also remember Sheldrake advocates alternative medicine, so this isn't just an abstract issue. vzaak (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the lede that we polished was good. The one I put on Tumbleman's sandbox was to be a starting point for collaboration. No one collaborated. It was stillborn. I denounced Tumbleman's introduction of it to the article and lauded its reversion. Tumbleman's introduction of it appears to be part of his ongoing dispute resolution experiment. I'm done trying to coax him into true collaboration. Fooled me one...etc.

Our version might have remained stable if he hadn't upset the applecart by inserting it provocatively.

I've stricken the diff you complain of from the ANI thread. I think additional editing in Tumbleman's sandbox would have been a more helpful response, but so be it. I'm not so sure I've breached any policy by including that diff in a long series of diffs, but I've been wrong before. Hell, I often think six impossible things before breakfast. I'd rather respond positively to your pointing out where I'm in error than insist stubbornly that I'm not.

My aim is not about nice. It's about treating living people as something special. I do not agree that some collaboratively improved version of my first draft on Tumbleman's page would have taught the controversy. Collaboration would have seen to that. What I put there was quite explicitly not ready for prime time. But it might have been a start. Or, alternatively, it might have called Tumbleman's bluff and kept him off the article page. As he kept crowing, up until that point, he'd made only one insignificant edit to the article. He escalated his experiment, moving from talk page to article space, when my effort to take him at his word failed. David in DC (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK sorry for writing too much on something you already know; I wasn't sure what the issue was and thus I should have written less. I'm not opposed to collaborating on a new lead. That particular lead seemed too far off, though, and there were issues of social, technical, and basic-science competence involved as well. vzaak (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just noted this discussion. I'm tempted to say 'I told you so.' --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Faith renewed

Just when my patience with myopic WP:FRINGE zealots was just about worn through, I read this. I sure wish User:IRWolfie- would. David in DC (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think going around calling people zealots is productive? IRWolfie- (talk)

You say he's calling people zealots like it's a bad thing! EEng (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In correcting the incorrigible? No. That's what incorrigible means. I'm never going to correct your view of me. If I announced that you'd walked on water, you might well hear it as an accusation of inability to swim. So ringing Pavlov's bell here creates no additional lack of productivity. Between us, productivity's already reached its nadir, its absolute zero. It can go no lower. It is a dead parrot.

But maybe, if you actually have read (or will read) what Liz wrote, you might be able to conclude that her explanation has merit, while still avoiding cognitive dissonance by being able to dismiss my saying the same thing as one of the infinite monkeys who managed to type Shakespeare, the blind squirrel who happened to find a nut and/or the broken useless watch that's still right twice a day.

She's right. As to BLP, the skeptics are egregiously wrong.

I hope I've answered your question. Now I'm going to do something more enjoyable. Like shaving my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil. David in DC (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This...

diff is not a revert. You need to be more careful with how you characterize other's edits, especially when you get that personal. jps (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This dolt is on a self-administered edit-block of at least one week in duration. The embarassing details can be found here.David in DC (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a walk in the fresh air. Do some photography. Tidy your room. Design experiments in morphic resonance. Make mayonnaise (really, home made is super). Today's events were ... interesting, and this event is understandable, and your ultimate response is admirable, if slightly ott. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Caaaaalm!

In the meantime have a giggle (I hope) on me. History and traditions of Harvard commencements EEng (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects RfC

When will this RfC close? –Mabeenot (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oxbridge oddities

You get a BA at Oxford, Cambridge, (and Trinity I think) for an undergraduate science degree, because of the funny traditions of those universities. Let's face it, Rupert Sheldrake wouldn't have been accepted to an Cambridge PhD programme if he didn't have an undergrad degree. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reposting the BLP noticeboard notice on the Sheldrake talk page. I had been wondering why something about that had not be in discussion. Tom Butler (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over "been"?

Hi, re

• "Since then, his work has largely centred on..."
• "Since then, his work has been largely centred on..."

We want to describe a continuous action stemming from the past, hence "been", no? "Present Perfect Continuous Tense"? The "been" was removed previously before, but not by you. Maybe I'm losing my grammar marbles. vzaak (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To my ear, "been" adds nothing. "Omit needless words", per Strunk & White. However, I think it's an extraordinarily unimportant matter and that re-adding "been" would cause no harm. Mine is only one ear (well, two) and yours is/are as good as mine. Van Gogh might have a different take on it. But he's dead, so it's no violation of WP:BLP to call him tone-deaf.

I think you should change it back. If a kerfuffle erupts, we'll both know that the craziness lies elsewhere. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Just thunk of something. If you make the change, it should probobly be to "has been centred largely on". "Has been largely centred" sticks an adverb between a form of "to be" and "centred". I think that's Shatner territory. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you guys thought of trying stand-up? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought of it every time the beer makes me fall down. But my morphic resonance is kinda foggy today, so I can't tell if vzaak has thought of it. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Let the stalker jump in. DinDC is right in the sense that been doesn't changes the tense; what it does is change the voice. mi-mi-mi-miiiii! Do-re-mi-fa-so-... Oops, wrong kind of voice.

Anyway, shifting to the present helps clarify the role of certain words:

1. Now his work centers on...
2. Now his work is centered on...

The difference is active vs passive: in (1) the work is the thing doing the centering (of itself); in (2) something else is doing the centering (of the work). But the tense is the same.

This is easier to see in my example than in the original example, because in my example work centers becomes work is centered -- adding is while changing centers to centered -- whereas in the original example work has centered becomes work has been centered -- adding been but with no change of centered.

Another way to see this is to note that the original example could be rewritten as:

• "Since then, his work has largely centred on..." (no change)
• "Since then, he has largely centred his work on..." (passive to active, but no change in tense)

Here it's more apparent that they are the same tense. Does that help? EEng (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) (I see I shifted to American spelling. So sue me. And there's nothing wrong with split infinitives and so on.)

Anon stalker suggests this heuristic: Use Of Now Considered Harmful. If the paragraph languishes without editor-love, it will eventually be tagged with and and . Better to say this, using my other rule of thumb against pronouns that may get murdered by later editors. "Since 2013, Smith's work has centered on..." I don't know the topic under discussion, but I left out 'largely' because that word is often either redundant (and thus better elided), or wrong (and thus better replaced with something that *does* reflect the state of reality the sentence is supposed to describe). You are now a fully-credentialed graduate of my course on defensive editing. The passive voice shall not be used by us. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists

Isn't it convenient that the vitamin C nut who caused the semi-protection last month shows up again just when "been" has been removed, causing full protection this time? Just asking questions. The Sheldrake article may indeed be a pretext for this war over "been". A secretive guerrilla army of "been" haters on Misplaced Pages, no doubt. vzaak (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Vitamin C nut" -- obvious code language. Nuts don't have much vitamin C, but "beens" do, so what's going on here is obvious. There may be a sleeper cell of "been" Laden followers at work here. EEng (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The cabal has not been kind to those historically remained less than kind to those editors that dare use the-word-of-which-we-shalt-not-spake. WP:TINC. You have been warned just now received your warning. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I'm clueless. Which of my many words has transgressed a line and led to this warning? Please feel free to email me. There's a tool for that on the left hand side of this page. And then there are a whole bunch of other tools... Oh, never mind. David in DC (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Who's on first? EEng (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gi've geen gractising gatching grisbees gin gy geeth, +++ spits +++ but I refuse to wear that silly poodle ballet frock. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the b-sound with a g-sound does not get you off the hook with the cabal, Roxy! As for you, David, you know very well you used the word-which-shalt-not-be-spaken, several times in this very section. (narrows eyes) You allow this section to remain on your talkpage, I further note. (eyelids spring open) The eyes of the cabal are everywhere. Always watching, Wazowski. Always watching. Email is also watched! You cannot trick me into spaking the word-which-shalt-not-be-spaken, by pretending to be short of a clue. I have always been always remained pure and strong in my support of the cabal! So ends the transmission. You have just now received your warning. Umm, again.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now there's a serious problem. Despite the fact that I've been wearing my tinfoil hat shiny-side out all day, this message resounded in my fillings long before I signed onto Misplaced Pages today. Which of you is working for the Culinary Insitute of America? Or the Natural Sculpture Association. Or the Masons. (I've never trusted those damn jars they've infiltrated into every kitchen in America.) OK, the agent provocatuer had better fess up or else. I mean it. You're not the boss of me, Arthur Read. I'm a very useful engine. David in DC (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

david. stop. using. the. word. they. will. hear. you. source. is. reliable. but. never. heard. from. again. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of serendipity: This is the awesomest reaserch link ever. And I'd dispaired of ever finding it again. Used to have it bookmarked when it actually appeared on the web page of a university. But it got took down. It was like an old friend I couldn't reconnect with. I'm still in the "Shiny-sise out" camp, based on personal experience. By I know the in-depth research holds otherwise and my anomalous personal anecdotal evidence probably just means that I'm an outlier. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, David. Misplaced Pages is no place for your POV-pushing WP:OR. I've provided an independent third-party peer-reviewed reliable source from some of the finest minds in academia. None of them were cited in the Sokal paper, I assure you. Put the tinfoil down, and back away. <very wide grin> Yes. Okay. Go on. <hands make shooing motion> That's better. Thaaattsss betttterr... let it go. Just walk away. Now, see, that wasn't so hard.  :-) Misplaced Pages is all about the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake, redux

No discussion of Sheldrake will ever be complete without a reference to Dr. Connor Ryall. . David in DC (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you'd post something under "Determining level of consensus". Somebody is trying to get a consensus, and they need all the help they can get. Lou Sander (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

grouping-names for Charley

Please see initial thoughts here -- User_talk:74.192.84.101#Only_half_serious -- when you have time. Danke 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a bot for that...

Hi, did you know there are bots that come around to reorder the references? I'm not saying I mind a fellow Turing-test-passer doing the work for them. Maybe the time interval between visits is too long for your satisfaction. Spraying bot pheromones on the article may help, once that's invented. vzaak (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No I didn't know that. I'll knock it off. Your Turing test comment suggests additional evidence of morphic resonance. I censored myself from making a snotty Turing test reference this morning on a thread about jokes. :)

Apropos of nothing, you've now also reminded me of one of my favorite Dave Barry lines: "This guy was so clueless, he couldn't find a clue, standing in a field of clues, during clue rutting season, doused in clue pheremones."David in DC (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Darts team

...holding goalie tryouts. Best I've heard in a long time! Lou Sander (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mig's page

Copied for lack of time: "Hi David -- yes, I saw it. Thank you. I'm waiting to hear from other festivals regarding my new film "Old Havana..." which was screened recently at the PFF. I'm moving totally into production, so I have left certain other activities behind in history dust. We'll see what shakes. I hate derogatory stuff -- usually not based on facts and only intended to demean me. Arrgggg. It's like they're watching in dark corners and waiting to pounce. Thanx again :). Mig (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to make a small correction. The polish FF screening of "Kninth Floor" was in 2012. In 2013 (two weeks ago) they screened my film "Old Havana..." Cinematography by Maks Naporowski and Pawel Gula (uncredited). Full title available on their site. http://www.polishfilmla.org/wocms.php?siteID=12&ID=713 Please delete after reviewing. Thank you so much! I'm now raising the money to proceed with the full length production and both men will be working with me on that project, as well as the entire cast and crew. Mig (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC"Mig (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOxlSOr3_M Lou Sander (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

An example

It looks like our collaboration was derailed.

In this link clicking on "More Programme Information" gives the text:

"Tonight on Belief Joan Bakewell talks to Professor Rupert Sheldrake. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and a former Research Fellow of the Royal Society."

As you've probably seen discussed, "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" being mentioned alongside name and occupation has led to accusations that it's intended to mislead by evoking Fellow of the Royal Society, something that is exceedingly different and exceedingly more prestigious. He received a fellowship like thousands of other researchers among many fields, and on paper the term is "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship".

He's certainly not a professor by any measure. Nonetheless we have a reliable source reporting: professor, the Fellow thing, and biologist. So why shouldn't WP report that he's a professor? Why shouldn't WP introduce him as Research Fellow of the Royal Society, ignoring the confusion with FRS? To me, this indicates the need of using sources that are more informed on scientific matters, otherwise we have an article about Professor Sheldrake.

You once remarked that "Kirk Douglas still gets to be called 'actor'". The analogy doesn't fit because Douglas has had a lifelong distinguished career in acting. A more appropriate analogy would be a case of someone who quit acting early in his career and took up another profession for 35 years. He wasn't a particularly recognizable actor, but in interviews he describes himself as one, and this gets reported by popular media. The weird part is that he calls his 35-year profession acting, even though to most everyone else in the world it isn't acting.

In reading the article now, I'm struck by how soft it is. I proposed the "hybrid" sentence earlier, but looking at the article again I just don't see any issue with the current lead. My concern now is that the off-site canvassing may have caused a toxic atmosphere. Before the canvassing we never heard about "former biochemist" being WP:BALLS. Nature is among the most prestigious journals in the world, but now it's BALLS for making the common-sensical assessment (along with other scientific publications) of Sheldrake being a former biochemist. It's easy to find non-scientific publications as well ("Sheldrake was once a respected Cambridge botanist" (ABC TV)). We had seemingly been in agreement on most matters, which makes the sudden push to calling Nature, New Scientist, ABC TV, and other non-agreeing sources BALLS and "long grass of skepticism" really strange to me. vzaak (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm out for a while. Professional conference for work from Sunday through Wednesday. Good luck. For the record, I agreed with JzG that Sheldrake's theories were WP:BALLS. All along, my main concern has been to make sure Sheldrake got treated more gently than his theories. And, secondarily to keep bullies from dominating the conversation. For instance, we had two canines. One's not a bully, although we disagree. The other most assuredly is. He's announced departure. If true, that's a good thing. There's a stationary photo stand that seems to be a bully, too. He shows no sign of relenting. I'm glad I'll be away from it all for a few days.

Long grass of extreme skepticism was a phrase employed by JzG, too. It acknowledges that, at the extremities, there is indeed a skeptical POV. I'm glad he's around. He's intemperate sometimes, but he's one of the best admins around, on par with NewYorkBrad and MastCell. They always have the best interests of the project at heart.

Again, good luck. I'll be back after a few days. David in DC (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asking about your statements such as "parapsychologist" (recently changed to the better "researcher in the field of parapsychology") being based on BALLS. You're saying the assessment by one of the most prestigious scientific journals is BALLS. It doesn't make sense and I was looking for some kind of justification. In your response here you've launched into all sorts of personal assessments and accusations which have no bearing on what I asked. vzaak (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Honest to goodness, I haven't called anything WP:BALLS or bollocks excepte Sheldrake's theories and hypotheses. In one spot I said we don't need to whitewash anyones balls in order to stay in line with BLP, just treat Sheldrake more gently than we treat his hypotheses. I don't think I've denigrated the respected periodicals that call him a parapsychologist in any way. I just don't think they're the last word on the subject. I don't think we look at the conflicting sources about whether he's a biologist (in the present tense) and decide which is reliabler. I think we cite both, and not explicitly that there's no consensus between or among all of these reliable sources, and report what they say. Regardless of what Nature says, we don't ignore what the BBC3 says because Nature is more respectable. They both have the indicia of reliable sources. We report that he's called a parapsychologist by one set of reliable sources and a biologist be another. We DON'T say he's an ex-biologist or a former biologist if he's got a Ph.D. in biology.

As for my characterizations, I gotta say, if you think the vehemence of what's going on upon the Sheldrake talk page is not personality-driven, you've got a blindspot. Having Tumbleman there, with his agenda, was destructive. Having my least favorite canine retire from participation is constructive. Having Guy monitoring the situation guarantees that the worst kind of excesses will be dealt with.

If you've got a diff where I've called anything but sheldrake's body of work bollocks, please show me. I've misremembered before. But I don't think you will. I think you'll find that my answer to your question "What do we do when reliable sources conflict" is different from yours, but it's not because the mainstream scientific periodicals are in any way unreliable. It's that they hold no monopoly on reliability, nor are they dispositive when other reliable sources conflict.

I'm still editing because my conference turns out to be pretty lightweight until tomorrow. But I'll be truly afk on Sunday-Wednesday. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Producing diffs seems an unfriendly thing to do, but if you insist, "Parapsychologist" belongs in the initial sentence of this BLP, it's been successfully argued, based pretty much on WP:BALLS..

I still support the "hybrid" opening I proposed, but only you and Barney have commented on it.

Re selecting the strongest sources: to exaggerate for effect, if Sailing Magazine makes a statement the Paleozoic era which is contradicted by a scientific journal, we go with the scientific journal. The point is simply that Nature is more qualified than the BBC to judge what field Sheldrake is in. vzaak (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should strive to have blind spots for drama. I don't understand your conflict with IRWolfie; I suppose it has roots going back to before my time. vzaak (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gosh we frequently misunderstand each other. Thanks. I meant that parapsychologist is in the lede of the BLP because Sheldrake's theories are considered WP:BALLS.

Sailing magazine on a paleozoic topic is an inapt comparison. The more appropriate comparison is Nature vs ABC, BBC, CBC, NYT or WaPo. News networks and newspapers of generally good repute should be mentioned alongside Nature on science if they differe.

I've got blindspots for some forms of drama. But not for bullies. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But you continued the same argument that "parapsychologist" in the lead was unfounded, basically saying it's BALLS and claiming that no sources "support the assertion that he should not be called a biologist", when the sources are right there in the lead. That's the perplexing part.

We really do misunderstand each other, because I said "to exaggerate for effect". That means I'm exaggerating to make the point clear. Some analogies are intended to clarify a point, other analogies are intended as a "guilt by association" kind of thing. By saying "to exaggerate for effect" I am placing the comparison exclusively in the former category.

Nature is simply more qualified to say what field Sheldrake is in. The BBC reports that Sheldrake is a professor and making it seem like he's a FRS. Nature would never do such a thing. Again, I'm still for the hybrid approach, but the current state of the article is reasonable as well. vzaak (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"basically saying it's BALLS" ---> no, just saying it's not dispositive. "and claiming that no sources "support the assertion that he should not be called a biologist" ...when the sources are right there in the lead." --> the sources in the lede say positively that he's a parapsychologist. They do not say he cannot also be called a scientist. David in DC (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources say "former biochemist" and "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist". The more general "scientist" may be feasible, but the original push was for "biologist". vzaak (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had successfully conveyed the issue in the talk page and in this section here on your page. Despite the barrage of distractions, I think there is a real conversation to be had on the matter. I wish we could pick up there instead of revisiting old arguments as if these things never happened.

I was concerned when you launched into listing personal grudges above. Now you are talking about "militant skepticism", but you've been around here enough to know that stuff is not true, right? For example Sheldrake recently said on the BBC that "they've got about five people banned so far". These claims are disproved because Misplaced Pages records history.

For the record I thought "Dan skeptic" was not a helpful player (I believe you thanked my revert of some of his especially stupid stuff on the talk page) and I don't think 76.107 is very helpful either. vzaak (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't know it's true. This next sentence pains me to write: I think Deepak Chopra makes a good point. David in DC (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Guardian article

The guardian article is wrong -- the heresy quote is from the 1994 BBC documentary, not the 1981 editorial. It also plays into the FRS problem I described above. vzaak (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rest Easy

	Rest Easy
	Enjoy your break, may it be peaceful and productive! — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)