Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 29 November 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Vzaak, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only "not reproducible evidence" - there is an unsupported assertion and a leaps of logic. Starting from an experiment which may (or may not) have anomalous results to the conclusion that such analogous results are not the result of (a) false positive (b) confirmation bias or (c) experimenter bias, is bad science. If you take this assertion at face value, you've got some unexplained results. Secondly, the vast rate of our increase in understand of developmental biology, isn't throwing up similar anomalous results. To go from these results to assertion that "energy fields" exist and that developmental biologists are barking up the wrong tree, that's the pseudoscience. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

$1m challenge

Hi. I have queried your change about DJ Groethe. Please clarify on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge. Thanks. Joolzzt (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

" We were pretty sure that the second referee was, in fact, none other than Daryl Bem himself, a suspicion that the good professor kindly confirmed for us." . Emphasis mine, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

It seems to me that the TED controversy should probably be covered, as this reached the mainstream press. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also: Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch accepted

Thank you Vzaak for your honorable resolution to this issue and I look forward working with you again maintaining WP NPOV. See you on the page! The Tumbleman (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Trolls

if you have evidence that an editor is only here to troll, it may be worth clearly presenting your case at WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban is probably appropriate if someone cannot contribute effectively. The problem is twofold (1) we get into repeated discussion of the same thing over and over again (2) it's impossible to discuss genuine issues in the article without being drawn into an argument Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure you are on the same page, we are talking about this and surrounding issues, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

tumbleman here. Is there some concern about my presence on the Rupert Sheldrake page that you or anyone would care to address? My page is updated for transparency purposes. If there is some relevant information you need from me or about me please ask courteously on my talk page. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please understadn

Please understand

1. The inconsistency of Sheldrake's hypothesis with existing scientific theories, is the #1 reason why Sheldrake is wrong.
2. Sheldrake is critical to the public understanding of science - he doesn't do science, he talks woo, which narks off any scientist who has a genuine concern about public scientific literacy. It is this area in which the tedx, British Association, in which most of the controversy is generated.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolpert 1984 reference supports the inconsistency statement.

The "lack of reproducible evidence" is wrong too. It's not that Sheldrake has evidence that others can't replicate, but rather that he doesn't have any evidence to begin with.

Meanwhile, the public understanding of science issue is critical, and the sources support this. Please check the sources. It is somewhat infuriating to spend hours finding and going through these sources, sorting the ideas out into what supports what, and then have it all reformulated in a way that doesn't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand, but I want to. Hoping you can explain. If sheldrake is right, or wrong, about his criticisms of science is not for editors to determine, that's a debate for philosophers and academics, not editors. While critiques of Sheldrake and his hypothesis and research are necessary to the page, I am quite unsure of the insistance that the page remove the historical context of the criticisms and remove Sheldrakes credentials as a scholar and scientist to make them. How does removing this make the page better? The Tumbleman (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns about Rupert Sheldrake

I responded to your concerns regarding Sheldrake on the talkpage for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article The article, as it stands now, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since support for Sheldrake is given by solid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.210.61 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ted

Hi. Thanks for your good work. I may have put my add'l footnote in the wrong place. I intended it to source the "framing language" referred to in the sentence before. It appears in the 3/14 ref I used but not in the 3/19 ref that's already there. If that seems sensible to you, please re-insert, in the proper place. If not, no worries. I sometimes think six impossible things before breakfast David in DC (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sections

per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the rest of the article. So (1) information shouldn't just go in the lead but needs to be repeated in depth in the article itself. (2) specific information should be kept out of the lead in preference to general statements, with the specific information repeated below. Keep that in mind to formulate lead information more efficiently. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, except the New Age stuff seems appropriate in the lead because it's short and clears up a common misconception, even though there no corresponding material in the body. The bad rationalization is that I don't know where else to put it. vzaak (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I think we can be going into too much detail about Sheldrake's complaints about dogmata of modern science. I think we can say that he labels many of the accepted fundamentals of science as dogmatic and that this puts him at odds with modern science. That is something that even his fanboys should agree to (they do seem awfully keen on a contradictory position where Sheldrake says all of modern science is wrong and where he is a heretic but where his views are also "not rejected" by scientists). Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Tumbleman is concerned that editors have outside agenda and association with GSM on Sheldrake page

WP is not a soapbox for the Guerrilla Skeptics on Misplaced Pages Movement. http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com. Personally I find this level of bias appalling and these tactics at conflict with the spirit of wikipedia. The Tumbleman (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that most editors are trying to implement policy including WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBCOM/PS and that raising the prospect of conspiracy theories and WP:CABAL is a sure sign that an editor is not basically WP:COMPETENT to contribute within the "spirit of Misplaced Pages" Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney, Vzaak, am I mistaken? Are both of you denying you are apart of the GSM on Misplaced Pages? Would be great to clear this up, I will retract my position if this is not the case. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I am not involved in either any secret mailing list or under instructions of any blogger. I am trying to implement Misplaced Pages policies in line with WP:CONSENSUS on these policies. The only central resource is WP:FRINGE/N, which I can raise issues on if they arise. IT is quite clear that Sheldrake thinks there's a conspiracy but as far as I am concerned this isn't the case. If you go to you find one post from 2011 commenting on the pet psychic article that (presumably) is now out of date. The blog simply isn't relevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not ask if you were on any secret mailing list or under the instruction of any blogger. Indeed, it looks like you are the one doing the instructing as is evidenced on this talk page. I am asking specifically if either you or Vzaak have any co-ordination with any editors, on any platform, that are aligned with the directive of http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com. I say this because in the TALK page, both yourself and user Vzaak clearly do not address reasoned arguments or perform any WP behaviors to arrive at consensus, and clearly seek to make sure that the 'skeptical' point of view is represented, often in places where it is not warranted and this is the only interest that is ever expressed in TALK. We are not here to push any POV, not a skeptical POV, not a philosophical POV, we are here to address ONLY a NPOV to make the page better. http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com is not in the spirit of WP, any activitity that follows their principles is not in the spirit of WP. WP is not a SOAPBOX or a place for anyone, even if they are right, to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not affiliated in any way with any "guerilla skeptics" (sic) group.

The reason you ask is that you haven't provided any reasoned arguments to deal with at talk:Rupert Sheldrake, and you have consistently demonstrated lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. But insist on classic WP:RGW editing in this bizarre "social experiment" of yours. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to know if specifically you are co-ordinating with any editors whom are members of http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com or have any knowledge of such group on the page. If what you are saying is true, that I haven't any reasoned arguments, then perhaps you can address that on the TALK page to the actual arguments that you have been avoiding by myself. You have a history on wikipedia as being disruptive and have already been warned by WP admins regarding your behaviors. It's hard for me to accept there is no affiliation, since you and vzaak are actually performing their agenda regardless, which is still a violation of WP and not what this page is about. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is reason to address this. Barney the barney barney this quote is attributable to you on the TALK sheldrake page. I am all for including some of Sheldrake's more idiotic claims (he makes quite a few), but they need to be put in proper context, which means stating the obvious that such claims cannot be supported by science. This is NOT acceptable editing, and since you are clearing guiding Vzaak on this page, making it appear you are some sort of captain in this agenda - I am asking you to justify your POV since your own language clearly shows bias and it doesn't seem like you or anyone on your team participate in reasoned arguments as the record shows on the talk page. I am seeking to work this out with both of you on the talk page, I don't want to have to seek ADMIN assistance. If you or anyone else does not believe that can edit a page within a NPOV and not have their personal bias reflect their editing, then perhaps such editors should leave the page. I am also changing the title of this section to reflect my position accurately, since clearly you devoted a section to this issue. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fell better now we've had that little rant? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not confronting this to feel better, confronting this because it stands in clear opposition to the spirit of WP. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, completely out of step with all the policies I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To suggest I have been ignoring anything on the talk page, to suggest that I am not participating in a reasoned argument inside of consensus policy, to suggesting that that I do not understand your team's WP:CHERRYPICKING of policies somewhat deceptive and misleading on your part and quite consistent with you and your team's behavior on the talk page. Your team have done nothing but build a consensus amongst yourselves around the agenda of a skeptical movement with a sole agenda of making sure a ideological POV is placed on WP, bullied other editors off the page, and this abuse of WP will not be tolerated. You have a very short amount of time here before I seek admin support on this issue. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG first, thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your request, Barney the barney barney, I have read WP:BOOMERANG. Now I guess the ball is in your court. I have, for probably the fourth time, addressed reasoned arguments based on mainstream academic POV against many of GSM's editing decisions on Sheldrake's talk page just now. If what you are saying is true about me, then you can prove that in reasoned argument on the talk page that David in DC started that addresses the BLP and FRINGE issues. If what you are saying is true, it should be quite easy for you to make your case there and I can't tell you how much I look forward to seeing this. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided anything useful whatsoever. Adding confusion to the talk page is not useful. Your entire argument seems to be that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Sheldrake because Sheldrake's utterings are "not pseudoscience". We have consistently presented you with evidence of this to the contrary, which you have ignored as it doesn't fit your agenda. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing

I think one criticism is missing which is that

• Sheldrake claims phenomenon X exists. Phenomenon X (e.g. "psychic dog", "falling speed of light") has very weak evidence, and more parsimonious explanations exist for these (e.g. "psychic dog" is an artefact, speed of light falling due to inaccuracy of older methods.
• Sheldrake then claims that these phenomena require an explanation and "morphic resonance" is it.

My point is that not only is "morphic resonance" wrong, but the supposed phenomena that these explains don't exist. This is the "lack of evidence".

Of course, Sheldrake also claims that "morphic resonance" explains observable phenomena, such as biological development, disparaging the well supported genetical and biochemical-based theory of development. This is the "contradicts existing theories".

Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your latest edit, but I wont be doing anything further. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog, the RPA or the edit on materialism in the article? vzaak (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to look up RPA, and that is what I don't understand, but please don't sweat it. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I understand, after a lot of thinking, and searching, no names no pack drill. Sorry for the hassle. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the reverting, TALK about it first

I am not seeing any of the issues you mention, and my edit has all the necessary sources. I want to here your POV, but can't unless you come and TALK about it. Please no edit wars. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that ignoring Tumbleman (talk · contribs) and his twisted absurd suggestions rooted is probably actually the best thing you could do. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rupert Sheldrake shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war

The Tumbleman (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe make it an official RfC

Your set up here almost looks like you want to start an official request for comment to determine the sense of the Misplaced Pages editors as a whole which may be a very good idea. However, you would need to rephrase it slightly to ensure that you are presenting it in neutral terms. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's necessary? I assumed the talk page should be tried first. vzaak (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon IP 71.139.149.74 editing fringy articles

Believe probably the anon who was throwing a tantrum previously. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting indent

I'm sorry if you regard me as "messing with" you. I was trying to avoid confusing your comment with the one up above, which had the same level of indent (and now it does again). It was pretty clear, IMHO, that your comment was directed to David. IMHO, that is harder to see now, but that's your business. Also IMHO there is a need to eliminate as much confusion as possible on the Sheldrake talk page. Lou Sander (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my way of looking at things, but you seem to be intent on reverting the edits of others and replacing them with your own. Lou Sander (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea

I have no idea.

In fact, it's harder now with Tumbleman (talk · contribs) out of the way (at least until he makes another sockpuppet) because we have to deal with - whatever the collective name for trolls? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Trolls are very scary. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Any reason why you deleted my comment? GiantSnowman 08:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking your advice, I wrote "I'll change it to just address the canvassing here" and then did so, deleting my comment as well. Since the ANI was only minutes old, striking out didn't seem necessary. Sorry, I was only trying to prevent confusion, and I didn't mean to offend. vzaak (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No offence taken, it's just generally poor form to delete somebody's comment, and I was surprised when I logged on this morning to see your much shorter complaint, as well as my vanished comment! No harm done, however. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

as you wish

(context: you reverted my talkpage edit as a breach of etiquette.) But my decision was based on your assertion that TLDR was the main problem. Sorry to have offended you. I will repost the modified table as clearly my own commentary. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(context: you reverted my second talkpage edit which addressed that stated concern.) Ahh, so your real complaint was *not* actually that I had broken talkpage-comment-etiquette, but rather, you consider me pointing out the battleground-nature of the article and the talkpage, as continuing to provoke the battleground. Correct? You also seem to be trying to make the case that *I* am the disruptive editor, is this correct? Refusing to let me comment on your accusation is not the correct use of WP:ROPE.

    But I seriously have just one simple, single-minded goal. I want the people on the talkpage to be WP:NICE, especially Barney who is lashing out, but it also applies to folks like Alfonzo who refuse to see reason, and go about Assuming Bad Faith. Then, once that is achieved, I want the article revised to reflect the sources, which means to fully comply with WP:NPOV and also WP:UNDUE. Right now, it is a total basket-case, and heavily slanted to the Barney side.

    You are against me pointing out the factions, over on *that* talkpage, even though they are plain as day. Do you want to discuss it here, and try and make it less-provocative? Alternatively, if you want to keep the factions implicit, what specifically do you suggest we do next, to start getting the article & talkpage both functioning properly again? We can try to call in additional people, but that's been tried, and adding *more* cooks to the kitchen seems unlikely to reduce the high-volume high-stress talkpage, unless we bring in a benevolent dictator that will post each issue, allow max-100-word comments, and then perform the consensus edit (or else re-add the issue to the end of the open-issue-queue). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this editor is being severely disruptive on talk:Rupert Sheldrake, and as a first step I think that semi-protecting the talk page would be beneficial. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Barney, thanks for dropping in. You can call me 74. Appreciate you avoiding personal attacks this time. Still waiting for you to apologize to VeryScaryMary. Vzaak has never crossed the line into personal attacks, but if they continue to ignore my good-faith efforts for another week, will definitely have gone across the WP:IDHT line. Thanks for your input. If you care to accuse me of anything, better do it on my personal talkpage, rather than getting into the middle of my conversation with Vzaak. Well, since Vzaak refuses to respond as yet, either here or on the talkpage, it is so far a one-way conversation, but I expect that will change for the better, soon. Barney, such behavior lends credence to the guerrilla-sceptic-conspiracy-theory that Sheldrake published on his blog. I'm interested in two things: WP:NICE as a means to WP:RETENTION, and getting the WP:BLP article out of WP:BATTLEGROUND and back into WP:NPOV, rather than skeptic-POV as currently written. All three of us agree that Sheldrake does not deserve an overly-promotional wikipedia page; the trouble is, using wikipedia as a way to *discredit* Sheldrake's credentials, is not just a violation of pillar four, and a violation of the very-strict-for-a-very-good-reason WP:BLP rules that David is valiantly trying to enforce, it is also guaranteed to BACKFIRE and give Sheldrake and his fans plenty of fodder, help sell copies of ScienceSetFree, and so on. Work with me here. Make the page fair and neutral. Be nice, and do not try to drive editors you disagree with away, or pretend you cannot hear them -- or especially accuse *them* of turning the page into a battleground -- then delete their comments proving their innocence -- the fault for the WP:BATTLEGROUND state of the talkpage and the WP:NPOV basket-case state of the mainspace article lies squarely on the shoulders of WP:NPA and WP:IDHT tendentious editing practices. Please drop them. Your work keeping pseudoscience where it belongs is valuable, but you are editing as if the skeptic-POV was *identical* to the mainstream-POV, which it is not. Use sources to show Sheldrake for what he is, not to try and synthesize his BLP into an attack-page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stats for the week

Very informative! (I hope you've seen it, 74.xxx.) I don't know that tool. Got a link? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, it's just a local script I wrote to grab the numbers from the history page; there's no link, but I can send you the script if you like. Not only has 74.xxx seen the stats, but vandalized them with "battle factions" information, complete with his boasting of his accomplishment. After I reverted the obviously-inappropriate material he tried to set up his "battle factions" again. He seems to see the Sheldrake talk page as some kind of battleground fun-time. vzaak (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fantastic, I'd love to have it. But… you mean a script you have on your computer, that I could also have on mine? Er, would I need a tech guy to install it? I've got such a one, but not every day, he merely visits. As for 74.xx, those edits you link to look… excitable, yes. Which is completely not what that talkpage needs. But they are from before I warned the user, or rather, I wrote a nice appeal, on his talk. If there's another storm of verbosity, or of "fun", later, well… we'll see. I hope there isn't. He seems well aware that there's a problem, per his replies to me. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC).

Hmmmmmm. (Elide wall-of-text concerning incorrect characterization of my actions... save to say that the interpretation of both my words and my motivations is incorrect... and to point out it was not I who started publishing demographics data on editors of the Sheldrake BLP. Instead, how about a deal -- neither of us posts further demographics data, concerning edit-counts and revert-counts and dates-of-entry and such, and neither of us pulls WP:IDHT towards any other editors. Sound good? You can let me know your answer by replying here, or alternatively by replying to one of the points I've made over on the talkpage. The sufism quotes would be nice, if you need a suggestion; they aren't even controversial, but I cannot get them in myself. If you truly want less drama, then collaborate, please; I promise I'm demanding-but-fair, and can always be convinced by clear-pure-reason, and if I prove unfair or unconvince-able-by-reason, then Roxy can gnaw my anklebones.)

    The reason the talkpage is a battleground, is because any time mainspace substantively changes, which is to say, in a way that might satisfy talkpage participants... especially that first sentence, which is so dramatically different from what it was just a few months ago... there is an insta-revert. As I explained to Bishonen, it is in the best interests of wikipedia's reliability, and of skeptics, to treat Sheldrake *fairly*, because distorting his bio makes us wikipedians look bad, and provides the 'oxygen of publicity' for Sheldrake, or whatever that quote was. Warzone talkpages are not fun for me; they are the opposite of fun. They are what kills WP:NICE and WP:RETENTION, my main goals on wikipedia.

    But for the talkpage to stop being a warzone, endlessly repeating the same arguments, mainspace has got to start mirroring the sources, not picking winners and losers. I can advocate change on the talkpage, but only you (roughly-but-accurately-speaking) can start the process of fixing mainspace that David keeps plugging away at. I think if we get through the first couple of sentences, it will break the logjam, and the rest will fall into place. You can call me 74, btw, and skip the suffix. Anyhoo, if you decide *against* replying, I won't be leaving more obviously-unwanted messages here. But seriously, please, I'm not against you here, and I think you're trying to do the right thing, just with the wrong tactics; give me the time of day, and then let's get the Sheldrake BLP worked out. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Structure of articles

Hi vzaak,

One of the problems we Misplaced Pages writers face is with Misplaced Pages:Article structure. Sometimes chronologically ordered is the best way to go, which would involve folding the "heretic documentary" itno the.

I think we want to include tests of Resonance. The Rose tests of 1992 play into this. I realise it was published in Rivista, (somewhat of a magnet for fringe research thanks to its editor Giuseppe Sermonti), as was Rose's reply to Sheldrake, and Sheldrake's reply to Rose's reply. But it follows from an exchange in the pages of The Guardian, in which they are somewhat forthright about each other. As Sheldrake complains, Rose is makes a number of points about Sheldrake and his research, including the idea that "Sheldrake is so committed to his hypothesis that it is very hard to envisage the circumstances in which he would accept its disconfirmation".

Then we need to include the stuff about Jaytee the psychic dog. I think this might deserve its own article, given the level of press coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But isn't the dog-Homo telepathy affair a great example of why Misplaced Pages editors should not be making inferences from primary-source papers? For instance it needs to be explained why it is important that Wiseman says Sheldrake's dog book contains "only brief descriptions of the experiments and does not contain many of the details needed for a proper assessment, such as whether RS's method of analyzing his own data was developed post hoc". As editors we can't explain what that means. And the root problem of the current dispute seems to be that one editor is completely oblivious to what that means. The Rose experiment is a similar situation. We can blandly repeat conclusions, but explanations and interpretations have to come from expert secondary sources. vzaak (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. My brain hurts. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why it should though. Thoughts are not the product of the brain (apparently). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vzaak/Sheldrake_response. It is a concise, factual synopsis. I wish Sheldrake had been so meticulous with the facts. I made a comment on Weiler's blog to explain that you were helping by questioning if he was the real Weiler, but it didn't get through his 'moderation'. Seems he doesn't like to hear both sides. I shouldn't be surprised. Joolzzt (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It's all completely weird to me. At the time I had been recently involved with the Eben Alexander article which had some REALNAME blocks, so the issue was on my mind. No good deed...

I don't know what to do about the information gulf between conspiracy and reality. As shown in the article's history, so many of the claims are demonstrably false, including new claims recently made in Sheldrake's BBC interview. When conspiracies are repeated uncritically, they begin to seem real. I expected more from the BBC. vzaak (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was shocking reporting, the group Sheldrake complained about are public, but the BBC reporter didn't seem to have made any efffort to get their side of it. The Beeb got a lot of complaints about it, some over Sheldrake's specific claims, and many over why he was allowed to speak on the radio at all :-) There is supposed to be a follow up with the truth, but not heard it yet. Keep up the good work! Joolzzt (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake refs

• It is a reasonable summary. With regards to the Guardian and Observer archives, yes they are behind a paywall, but you can get free access although you have to use your head a little bit to gain access. (Basically, in the UK, you need a library card from a county library that has bought access. Some counties, including my own, haven't bought that access, so I've got a card from a neighbouring county so I can log in. I don't think it would be a problem for a good hacker.) If you're in the US or Canada you might be able to get access in a similar way. Also, I can email them to you if necessary.

* all of the G-Obs references that I can find are listed at User:Barney the barney barney/sandbox3, including ones we can't really use. Really struggling to find scientists that support Sheldrake apart from Josephson.

• Most of this plays out in during the 1980s on the pages of Guardian and Observer. I think this is because of the personal beliefs of Brian Inglis. The Times (whose archive I also have access to) has only 1 piece on Sheldrake, and the standard sarcastic letter following it.
• There are a couple of other references that are behind paywalls at Nature.
• I have used a few more recent sources that are in the Gale databases.
• I think from my research that a good source would be New Scientist from the same period, but I'm not sure if or where their archives are online. Further research might therefore involve a trip to a physical library.

Note that I would appreciate your assistance with some of the reviews, to ensure I've captured the essence of them correctly. Some of the more religious-minded and anti-science-minded comment pieces I don't really understand, and have difficulty summarising, I think because they don't make much sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet inserting pseudoscience

Just to let you know as you seem to have some previous run-in with this editor:

198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs) he was topic banned but he's now on 98.210.147.182 (talk · contribs) inserting pseudoscience on the Dean Radin article. Dan skeptic (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic, yes that is certainly the same person, by behavior, writing style, and location. Write up a sock puppet report if you have time. vzaak (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne

You were mentioned in his blog post Dan skeptic (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

fine, have it your way

Vzaak, I’ve watched the Sheldrake page for a while. I’ve watched Tumbleman run amok. And I’ve watched the POV pushing persist for weeks on end. So, when Blippy showed up and went absolutely hog wild I thought it best to step in and help lest you guys totally lose control of the page. I rather thought that you would appreciate an IP editor taking a heavy handed approach and startling the boundary of civility so that you could keep your hands clean.

Now, I would say that you should have a damn good reason to tell another editor to leave, but in this instance I don’t care what your reason is. If you’re going to attack the people who try to aid you, then I’ve absolutely no desire to try to help you any longer.

Oh, and please don’t post anything else on my talk page. It’s a shared IP. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Making irrelevant and disparaging remarks toward others is not helping anyone. I didn't tell you to leave; I asked you not to use the talk page as a forum. vzaak (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Massimo Pigliucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome (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) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You make some good points

But yet again we are sidetracked into dealing with those unwilling or incapable of basic competency.

Or we could set up email I suppose.

The article is getting a bit long now, and yes perhaps some of the uninteresting reviews can be left out. Generally, those without any scientific or academic background can go first.

I do however think the chick experiments are relevant, as this seems to be the first "proper" test of MR, even though it was ultimately unsatisfactory in the sense that the results didn't match the null hypothesis exactly but deviated due to experimenter effects. As far as science is a doing process, this is important.

Misplaced Pages is not good at dealing with Fringe issues but part of the problem is the scientific community aren't especially good at it either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your are no fun!

Can you imaging the marketing if he DID hook up to the right morphic field? "Harness the power of every orgasm in history!" "It gets BETTER EVERY TIME" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made a comment at the admin's talk p. with respect to this warning here DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. The sanctions on pseudoscience only apply to those who are promoting it, not defending against it. Who would you say is the editor most representative of the loony tune clique on the Sheldrake page? I'd guess 10 to 1 Alfonzo Green is a troll or a sockpuppet and we can get him outta here. Half the work is already done. 134.139.22.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions do not pertain to a particular point of view but to disruptive behavior. Editors on either side of this debate can display conduct that warrant sanctions. It's not about content or point of view but about conduct and behavior. Liz 22:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

WEll that's OK isn't it Liz (talk · contribs) because one "side" of this faux "dispute" has Misplaced Pages policy on its side, especially WP:FRINGE, and seeks to accurately represent academic consensus. The other "side" of this dispute doesn't have Misplaced Pages policy on its side, is anti-Misplaced Pages and its policies, anti-WP:FRINGE, and are being excessively disruptive by misrepresenting sources and Wikilawyering, and therefore wasting the valuable time of editors (i.e. being disruptive). Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NICE, Barney. The dispute is real. It is a policy-dispute, over whether WP:NPOV is (or is not) distinct from WP:SPOV aka WP:SkePOV. If the only way you can 'accurately' aka truthfully represent 'academic/serious/real' consensus amongst Reliable Sources... is by *ignoring* by your own personal decision some subset of Reliable Sources that happen to disagree with WP:SPOV... then you misunderstand wikipedia policy. WP:FRINGE applies to questions *of* science, but not to questions of science-funding, not to questions of science-credentials, not to questions of philosophy, and not to questions of spirituality (with one key exception -- it still applies where folks in those fields make competing claims with science -- e.g. that the scientific theory of evolution is false).

  Misplaced Pages just ain't truth-o-pedia; your argument with vzaak over whether Rose is a "real enough" scientist, and whether his published conclusions are "bad enough" to outright delete from mainspace, is a symptom -- wikipedians don't get to decide, Reliable Sources decide. Rose stays. HTH. p.s. Just type "u" instead of the longer "user" if you want the more-readable-yet-still-linked-form, {{u|vzaak}} produces vzaak sans the trailing-parens-stuff. p.p.s. Suggest you both ask 134 to include-you-out of their reprisal-warnings, if nothing else, to help avoid a battleground-mentality. By personally messaging you two, 134 is proving they at least can see the sides, and furthermore believe both of you are on their side. If this in accord with your wishes, also? Just for the record, I'm on the side of pillar four and pillar two as currently written. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And right on cue, the rambling anti-Misplaced Pages IP spews more pixels over a perfectly good talk page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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,