Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:00, 29 November 2013

EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care

Welcome!

Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Misplaced Pages is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Misplaced Pages alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Naming conventions
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Policy Library

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Misplaced Pages:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Misplaced Pages related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008
Archive Two: 22 July 2008 - 2 December 2008
Archive Three: 5 January 2009 - 10 December 2009
Archive Four 24 February 2010 - 8 August 2013
Archive Five: 9 August 2013 - 18 November 2013

Pseudoscience sanctions notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake. Thank you. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but our patience is exhausted. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Now, will you please close your RfC?
• If you want, we can all discuss and come up with some type of contained RfC that will actually actually have a chance of determining consensus on specific content that will prevent the circular re-discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm done. Please see the ANI thread. David in DC (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

and the horse you rode in on

File:Wikibully.jpg
David in DC (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the shirt color of the victim has any significance. David in DC (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't lose heart

Your instincts are basically sound. If you and Vtaak and TRPoD could confer and ignore the input of others I expect you could work out a compromise. You all seem to know what you are doing - the problem is the peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement. You're one of the folks around here I've come to respect most.

I don't think you're right though. Things would be less vitriolic and no one would have wound up going to AE if things were left to the triumvirate you've suggested.

But with TRPoD in the mix, there's no way it would work out. The peanut gallery is only part of the problem.

There's a basic tension that exists when a living person espouses theories like Sheldrake's. The editors who are most concerned that wikipedia not legitimize nonsense don't heed, and don't see any need to heed, WP:BLP. Refusal to call Sheldrake a biologist, and multiple reversions of the word, despite citations to multiple reliable sources, derogates Sheldrake, along with Morphic Resonance. His degree has not been revoked and even articles critical of him, plus numerous neutral reliable sources from the general press (BBC, Guardian, HuffPo) use the word. It can be reffed just as easily as "psuedoscientist." And both should be.

Similarly, the words theory or hypothesis are not magic. They do not confer scientific status on quackery. But there are oodles of electrons wasted and numerous reverts in the page's edit history crusading against using these words about morphic resonance. With all of the sourced material in the article critiqueing, dismissing, rejecting and debunking morphic resonance, there's not a chance on G-d's green earth that a reader with a comprehension level higher than 2nd grade could possibly come away from the article misled about morphic resonance. Biologist, biochemist or scientist and theory or hypothesis would not change that. It suggests that our readers are dolts to cling to the notion that they would. And a an arrogant dismissal of the important values embodied in WP:BLP to revert the words, time and again, with talk page entries and edit summaries that say "He hasn't been a biologist for 30 years", "Scientists do science, Shelly does psuedoscience. The two are mutually exclusive".

There's a similar arrogance, detrimental to the project, that causes Fringe-fighters to lump Sheldrake acolytes in with editors motivated by fidelity to BLP. It makes the BLP arguments easier to dismiss. IRWolfie got tired and frustrated with me for repeating this next part and I hope not to do it ever again, because I hope to steer clear of the Fringe-fighters who seem bound and determined to silence, ban and block editors who they cannot persuade. But I figure I can get away with it once more, on my talk page, responding to you: "We must treat living fringe theorists more gently than we treat their theories. Handling the tension between BLP and FRINGE in these cases requires nuanced, careful, collaborative editorial judgment. Binary, toggle-switch, on/off editorial judgment is especially poorly suited to these cases."

Again, thank you for the encouragement. It helps. There are a lot of ways I can continue to help build this encyclopedia. But I've tired of trying to correct the incorrigible. The talk at AE in the last day about "tip of the iceberg" and at AN/I about a need to go after many more editors than Alfonzo Green troubles and, to a certain degree, frightens me. And I don't need my hobby to be giving me such tsuris as it's been giving me of late.

Best regards

David in DC (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the impression that you were one of the people I had in mind. I still think the RFC was not a good idea, but I appreciate your motives in bringing it forward.

Two comments: first, those of us who have spent much time on the Fringe theory noticeboard or watching one of the major fringe theory articles quickly come to have a deep empathy for Sisyphus. There's virtually no way to get the fringe partisans to behave except to get them banned; it's quite rare to come upon one of them who can approach their pet topic with some detachment. I wish it were otherwise: we had a long struggle over Ananda Marga topics with various followers who could have helped a lot, but who simply refused to do anything but evangelize. We tend to adopt an enforcer mentality because most of the time that's the way that leads to some resolution. Anyway, the second: when you have someone like Sheldrake, it seems to me that one of the crucial questions determining the approach to the article is whether or not the person would have caught our attention if he hadn't promulgated his theories. Noam Chomsky, for instance, is first of all famous as a linguistic theorist, completely apart from his conspiracy-mongering. I'm not so sure this is the case for Sheldrake; it may well be that he is a fringe theorist who happens to also be a biologist.

It looks as though any attempt to impose discipline on the article is going to fizzle anyway. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to offer me reassurance.

It's funny you mention Sisyphus, because that's exactly how I've felt trying to get even the slightest acknowledgement that derogating a living fringe theorist is different from derogating his theory. Is there some logical reason why calling Sheldrake a biologist or biochemist, for which there are plenty of reliable sources, or calling MR a hypothesis or theory, when that's what MR is called in plenty of reliable sources, is such an anathema to enforcers of WP:FRINGE? With those words in, and with all the debunking and refuting of MR in the rest of the article, do you really think there's some danger a reader would be misled by the article into thinking MR is anything but outside the bounds of modern science? Just how stupid would such a reader have to be? Because no amount of policy and fringe-wariness will save that poor soul. You can't cure stupid.

The absolutist red line drawn on the Sheldrake article against these words, their exasperated dismissal by editors committed to defending against a mythical danger, the repeated intemperate attacks against anyone who won't hew to an arbitrarily drawn line, the lumping together of BLP defenders with acolytes of woo --- none of this reflects well on wikipedia.

Speaking of that, upon reflection, I understand why the RfC was a bad idea. But the imputation of motives was wrong and wrong-headed. I couldn't care less about the comments of the first editor who called me out for it. He's shown poor judgment throughout this whole kerfuffle. But the next two have struck me as reasonable folk. And so I was persuaded to cry "uncle" and make clear that I regretted losing some of their respect.

But some of the more hysterical responses on the talk page, especially the first, make me wonder. Decrying an invitation to fresh eyes from uninvolved editors to look the thing over with sensitivity to BLP as well as FRINGE sure does seem to have scared some folk. One or two actually offered explicit condemnation of the idea, predicting that it would be useless or worse. If the principles being defended cannot be easily explained to editors who are previously uninitiated into woo-fighting, that calls the principles into question. As Justice Brandeis said: Light is the best disinfectant. I'm afraid the jaundiced, cynical view of long-time, veteran woo-fighters, hard-won through Sisyphian labors, doesn't --- when viewed up close on the battleground by the uninitiated --- look not too to be very many steps removed from WP:OWN. Especially when coupled with the frequent trope that editors who don't understand lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit the article. A few years ago User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and I helped prune back some of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN that the suite of articles about the World's Oldest People had become. I thought I'd seen the limits of incorrigible intransigence then. I now have a newer, and worser, experience under my belt.

I'll stay the hell away from it now. Life's too short and the toll's too great. But if you have influence among FTN-centric editors, I urge you to try to get some serious reflection initiated among them, after they've successfully "rescued" the Sheldrake article from the menace I posed. It would be well-warranted. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did see your response, and I get a sneaky feeling I was one of the next two. I wanted to say that I am not a heavy hitter with regard to real editing, but am opinionated and find it easy to voice that opinion on Talk pages, but am not so confident when it comes to the real work here. My comment to you re the RfC lightly tripped off my paws and was perhaps a reflection on me as much as you. The advice "Don't lose heart" is good advice. Articles like the Sheldrake one will always be difficult, and our mutual interest in things fringe will always bring us to articles like it. As regards 'good faith' per my comment, I think that it was a bit rash when I look at it now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That was intended as an apology. It isn't very good, is it? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a very nice thing to wake up to. Thanks for taking the time and for being motivated to make the effort.

I'm mostly interested in biographies, so we may not see each other much except where FRINGE meets BLP, and even then, I'll be gun-shy for quite a while when I find an article with such a nexus. But I look forward to crossing paths with you in other parts of this great big, wonderful project. The only true markers of adulthood are the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and a sense of humor. You display both attributes, in spades.

As I said above, I do now understand why the RfC was a bad idea. David in DC (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You need TRPoD because if you can persuade him, you have won. Try having a chat in a different context. I think you both want to do the right thing. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"An RfC" that would help determine whether the community views specific content as appropriate or not is not a bad idea. An "RfC" that asks people to put out their opinions about FRINGE and BLP about four paragraphs of content is a TERRIBLE idea. The talk page is already an unreadable wall of text of opinions and just collecting more walls of text of opinions could not possibly help determine any consensus about specific article content or how to present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I've cried "uncle", asked to have the RfC shut down, apologized to editors whose opinion of me matters to me, and forsworn participation any time soon anywhere on the wiki where there's a nexus between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I've laid out my opinions many times in places you could read, including in this thread. Guy is kind to imagine that I've got the magnanimity in me to have the conversation with you that he proposes. I don't. I'm feeling too bullied. Maybe it'll pass. But don't hold your breath. The shade of blue you'd turn by the time I recovered equanimity about our encounter would clash badly with your chosen color.

Please carry on. You'll not find me obstructing you. As Groucho once said: Don't go away in a huff. Just go away. David in DC (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

sorry I completely misread your comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re. a point made above. The terms hypothesis and theory have specific meanings in science, which MR does not meet. It's a conjecture. Even Sheldrake should know enough to realise this. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The realty-check you've provided is welcome. I'm disengaging on a topic where my participation is not helping build the encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. Lou Sander (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barry McCaffrey 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Sheehan-Miles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

• from a burning tank during the ] at the ].<ref>[http://www.sheehanmiles.com/about/ Charles Sheehan-Miles' personal web page</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,