User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/264

Request for comment
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Much appreciated. ;-) Liz  Read! Talk! 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more to say
The Tumbleman AE is the second time I happen to see you make an astute comment as you did on Risker's talk page... Nothing to say but to support the comments in both places. Thanks for the great work.(olive (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Thanks, olive. I'm uninvolved in the Sheldrake discussion but I went over to the Talk Page several times to read through the discussion over the past three weeks. I see the polarity that I've noted in previous discussion between skeptics and sympathizers. While I didn't follow all of Tumbleman's arguments and comments, he shouldn't be turned into a scapegoat for what is a very uncivil and heated conversation. This minor sock incident and some old message board comments from 2005 have been brought up and it's grounds for an indefinite block? Sometimes, to the casual observer, it seems like AN, AN/I and ARBCOM are just a means for driving Editors who one disagrees with off of Wikipedia. And the more I dig into the ARBCOM case files, well, I see the same names come up again and again and again. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been participating in the chaotic mess that is the Rupert Sheldrake biography. I guess you could say that I'm a Sheldrake supporter. I got into it because someone requested it of me due to my strong subject knowledge.  But it is useless there.  The arguments have nothing to do with good scholarship and everything to do with turf wars.  I have tried to be civil, but the abuse and bullying is just endless. I end up being terse.  I have dealt with a lot of skeptics over time and these are by far some of the worst I've ever encountered.Craig Weiler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Craig Weiler, it's important to know that there has been an ongoing struggle on Wikipedia between skeptics and sympathizers since at least 2006 (that's the first Arbitration case I came across). There is one group of skeptics that targets what they judge to be pseudoscience and a similar group that targets new religious movements (like Scientology or Transcendental Meditation). The goal is to convince others, hopefully influential Editors, that a specific theory, opinion or viewpoint is "fringe". Once that is accomplished, you can ridicule it and marginalize it all you like.
 * Since the body of the world's scientists or theologians don't gather together to debate these matters, it all becomes a race for sources that back up what you believe to be true. Instead of swords, people pull out references and duel with them. You would think the least painful resolution for all concerned would be compromise but it's become a matter of ideology so people consider this a matter of TRUTH (WP:But it's true!) so Editors are reluctant to back down from their entrenched positions.
 * From what I can gather, the most common way for disagreements on contentious subjects to be settled on Wikipedia is:
 * outnumber your opponent by bringing in reinforcements
 * overwhelm them with data/references and ask them to refute each one
 * get them kicked off of WP for 3Rs or edit warring
 * someone gets frustrated, angry and gets bounced off WP for launching a personal attack or
 * you wear your opponent down until they get tired of the fight and leave
 * Wikipedia is people and people have virtues and vices so Wikipedia does, too. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That about sizes up what I've seen so far. This is all going to blow up in Wikipedia's face. Liz, how long have you been editing on Wikipedia if I may ask?Craig Weiler (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, Craig, Wikipedia has weathered full-on scandals that were pretty enormous and it still survives. That's one of the advantages of having a decentralized organization, individuals can leave (or be kicked out) while new users are just signing up. And English Wikipedia is just one of the hundreds of Wikis. I'm sure there are huge problems on Wikis in different languages that most of us aren't even aware of.
 * As for me, there is a little bit of information about me on my User page. I first created a registered account in 2007 but I chose to mostly edit logged out, as an IP, because I didn't really want to engage with other users, I just wanted to fix typos and grammar mistakes when I saw them and move on. It's only since July 2013 that I've really become a full participant here but it's been quite an immersion! Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it would crush Wikipedia, only create a great deal of trouble for it. Watching the Trial of Tumbleman I can only marvel at how completely this group of ideologues has captured Wikipedia. That, not the Sheldrake web page, will be the main source of trouble because it's an indication that the entire system is broken.Craig Weiler (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess my point is this is not the first time there has been a dust-up like this. I don't know if there was ever a time when the system wasn't "broken". Conflict happens every day in a collaborative environment. Most times, it is peacefully resolved through the passage of time (you make an edit, I come by a week later and edit the same page, someone else comes by later that day and edits my work) but there are occasions when an article like Sheldrake becomes a focal point for a much larger debate on what is legitimate knowledge and what is not. For the participants, the stakes are high and it goes far beyond Sheldrake himself. Right now, the article is on a 3 day lock-down, which means no one can edit it and hopefully, people talk to each other instead of warring over edits. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is not a chance in hell of people working together. This parapsychology stuff just sets the skeptics off too much.  The history of parapsychology, which dates to the late 1800's is full of this kind of behavior from detractors from the very beginning.  Irrational, ideologue, rude, nasty authoritative: everything happening on the Sheldrake page is the mirror of a history that stretches back 130 years.  The skeptics are all frightened by something so deep in their subconscious that they're not even aware of it and they fight like hell to keep it that way.


 * I know that it's tempting to view both sides as heads and tails of the same coin. It's easy and it seems to make sense until you realize one side is purely reactionary and the other side isn't reactionary at all.  Wikipedia is like a warm, comfortable blanket for skeptics; it has boundaries; rules, authority and procedures.  It's their virtual playground and prison.  They can be kings here, but leaving means giving up their Wikipedia kingdom and starting over.


 * By contrast the very thing that draws them in repels the people on the other side of the debate. Unlike them, we can never stop seeing the prison bars, nor can we stay in a perpetual state of hate and fear, constantly motivated to fight the smallest battles, which is why they always win in places like this, but are slowly losing in the world at large.Craig Weiler (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very insightful analysis, Craig Weiler. I don't judge people by their beliefs but on how they treat other people so my sympathies lie with those who can remain civil and who strive overcome any bitterness or animosity they might feel towards those who are different from them. As for the two camps in this debate, I think they have such dramatically different worldviews. But I think Wikipedia should reflect them both. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Liz: Your idea that Tumbleman might have gone to a mediation is a good one and one that would help retain valuable editors. In my mind we should always be looking for ways to keep people rather than ways to get rid of them. The missing ingredient in this case was that Tumbleman was one of many on that talk page as you've said, and that he is a relatively inexperienced editor. How does an intelligent person react to the heated, often illogical arguments presented with out the experience to see what  the outcomes can be given the Wikipedia environment? What do they feel they have to do in desperation as they try to have their points heard. There are those who understand and have the experience to manipulate the system in favour of a world view. I believe this encyclopedia is collaborative, that behaviours that are deliberate attempts to damage other editors and get rid of them are the most egregious and in the long run the most dangerous to the collaborative environment, and to Wikipedia. A friend wise friend once told me he doubted Wikipedia over time could sustain the kind of negatively driven environment this kind of editor created. I hope he's right.:O)(olive (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC))
 * You sound like the voice of experience, olive. I don't have any magic answers to your question. I know that it is important to listen to others, hear their concerns and address the ones that you believe have merit. I think it's also important not to react out of anger but I know how hard it is to refrain from snapping back when one feels attacked or belittled. The best one can do is try and learn from ones mistakes.
 * You do point out a problem I see, which seems like wikilawyering to me (although I'm not sure if that is the correct term). There are those Editors who are very smart about the way to file complaints, who have allies who are Admins, who are ready to back up any claim with a "diff" and if an inexperienced (and even some experienced) users run afoul of them, good luck! They are very effective at mustering support for whatever they propose because they know the system well while most newbies don't even know the WP jargon, what a noticeboard is or that in a defense of their actions they can't be sarcastic, flippant or angry (which, frankly, is a standard internet response).
 * They begin at a disadvantage that is difficult to overcome and becomes impossible if the complainant is able to get them labeled a "troll", "vandal", "sock", "puppet" or the nebulous "disruptive Editor". Whether these identifications are valid or invalid, these labels are almost impossible to shake and they follow a user even if they quit WP, go away for a few years and then return under a different username. If someone connects them to a maligned, previous account (and they haven't acknowledged this on their User Page), the typical response seems to be an automatic block.
 * It's ironic for a medium that is constantly changing, second by second, edited by tens of thousands of people, that it also seems to be unable to forget and forgive. Regarding its users, WP has a long, long memory. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz, if you have any interest in this area you are touching on here, and have a few minutes, could you look at my essay WP:POV Railroad and give any feedback or comments you may have, on the essay talk page? Thanks in advance. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of tabs open right now, <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b>, but I'll look over it sometime today. ;-) Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #80
<div style="margin-top:10px; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read the full report &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; Global message delivery 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions
 * Discussion over the implementation of 'showcase items'
 * Requests for comment over restructuring user rights
 * Events/Press/Blogs
 * Lydia gives a talk at Latinoware about Wikidata
 * Talk at UCBerkeley about Wikidata
 * Other Noteworthy Stuff
 * This week the 80 millionth edit was made to Wikidata
 * Did you know?
 * Newest properties: street address, e-mail, guest of honor, MusicBrainz label ID, burial plot reference, Austrian municipality key, streaming media URL, MycoBank taxon name identifier, IPNI taxon name identifier, Tropicos taxon name identifier, MSW species identifier, section, verse, or paragraph, ISBN-10, IBNR identifier, full text available at, ISCO code, NSZL identifier, BNE identifier, NLI (Israel) identifier
 * Newest task forces: International relations task force
 * Development
 * Further development on WikibaseDatabase
 * IE8 is working again
 * JSON socumentation created and merged
 * Lots of work carried out on the quantity datavalues
 * Papercut: mouseover input suggestions messes up input. Fixes bug 44896
 * Open Tasks for You
 * Update, expand and translate Wikidata:Introduction to make it easier for newcomers to understand what Wikidata is all about.
 * Help fix formatting and value issues for a property.
 * Build a bot for one of the "bot requests".
 * Respond to a "Request for Comment".
 * Hack on one of these.

The Signpost: 16 October 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent events
Hello, I appreciate many of the points you made at the Tumbleman AE. I would only say that it was not the right place to make those points. I was surprised that Tumbleman had supporters at all, since I don't think he makes anyone look good. The issue of his trolling/socking history elsewhere is telling (and still recent), but the AE case didn't require it. It was based on activity that extended a month prior to the "event" which brought an influx of Sheldrake supporters leading to the present situation.

What was this "event"? It was this. If you want to understand what is really going on with the Sheldrake article, that link is the place to start. One person had blogged about crazy conspiracy theories, and then Sheldrake himself bought into the conspiracies and expanded upon them on his blog. Tumbleman had harassed me about it on my talk page. It's all nuts.

And the propaganda continues. Take a look at this post which says, "The Tumbleman has been banned for a week supposedly for creating a sockpuppet account that never appeared on the Sheldrake page." The blogger had to have gotten that information from the SPI, where it plainly says that one sock had zero edits. The blogger doesn't mention the other two socks who participated in the Sheldrake page to support Tumbleman (the only thing they did as editors). This kind of brazen dishonesty continues to astound me.

I value your perspective in these Sheldrakian matters, which is why I want you to be informed about the absurd propaganda that's part of all this. vzaak (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, vzaak, since that Sheldrake Talk Page had over 100 edits/day, I stopped keeping up with the conversation over the weekend. I appreciate you approaching me politely as I'm coming from an opposing viewpoint to yours. I will look into those comments that you're sharing. I was not aware there were other socks associated with Tumblemen who participated in the Sheldrake discussion, that wasn't indicated in Tumbleman's SPI. And I see newly created accounts arguing pro- and anti-Sheldrake so I think there are socks on both sides. Without seeing your evidence, from where I'm standing now, it looks like an united effort was made to drive off an Editor that some others found annoying. And I find that tactic chilling.
 * You will prove me 100% wrong if it turns out that those who are skeptical of Sheldrake can work constructively with those who support him to come up with a biography that has a NPOV. If I see other users receiving blocks for expressing their opinions, well, I guess I called it right. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tumbleman asked me to make some sort of comment on his behalf. I'll be brief.  He was cleared of sockpuppetry, so this is a non issue.  He had no sockpuppets on the Sheldrake page. Rupert Sheldrake himself has been banging the drum for something to be done on Wikipedia for some time now, so because of his influence and reach, he is the most likely sources of new supporters.  I first heard from him, not the other way around.Craig Weiler (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check, Craig, but I thought the situation sounded contrived. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that WP:NPOV does not require us to treat fringe theories as equal in scientific regard to the mainstream of actual present-day science, be they indigo children, flat earth, scientific creationism or morphic resonance. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Orange Mike  (and everyone else), Sheldrake's article is a biography, it is not a page on Theories of Morphic Resonance. Of course the man's ideas need to be included but the bulk of the article should be factual, about Sheldrake's life and work. Within an article like this, of course, it can be stated that the science community doesn't accept certain ideas. But at most, this is a paragraph or two of the entire article. You can present someone's work without saying, "and this is TRUE" or "this is FALSE". It just is. Present who the man is and let the reader pass judgment.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Liz, we do not give extra legitimacy to pseudoscience by not putting it in context with respect to the most respectable sources. That's contrary to Fringe and WP:MEDRS (where applicable). It's quite frankly irrelevant that its a biography. Fringe theories don't get a free ride just because they are in a biography, we aren't writing hagiographies, sourced criticism with due weight can be included. Including reliably sourced claims can never be a BLP violation. Following from your view, we would barely mention that Andrew Wakefield work is regarded as fraudulent and that was never accepted by the scientific/medical community, or the refutations by the scientific/medical community, but rather focus on the claims he made. That would be a very dangerous way of writing that article. When a topic is not independently notable from the main protagonist (Sheldrake), then that topic is described in the persons article, as is currently done. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a question of focus. A biography should be focused on the subject first, their work, second. One can present Sheldrake's ideas in the context of talking about the legacy of his work and mention that they are not highly regarded without trashing the person. I believe that encyclopedias should be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm just arguing for this:
 * Tone: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
 * Balance: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."
 * Where BLP applies: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, and article titles." BLP


 * Fringe: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea..." (and this is a BLP article, not an article about a "mainstream idea")
 * Fringe: "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
 * Unwanted promotion: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article."
 * Evaluating claims: "Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality....but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations."
 * Notability versus acceptance : "Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." FRINGE


 * What I see here is a lot of guidance that stresses "neutrality". Editors can point out that a theory is not widely-supported by the scientific community (which is neutral) and not describe an idea as "fraudulent" or portray an individual and his theories as absurd (which is a judgment and is not neutral). What I also see is that most of the guidelines are about presenting fringe ideas in the context of an article on a mainstream subject...that is not the case here when the article is about a person. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points Liz. While WP:FRINGE is an important guideline for the encyclopedia it is often misapplied as you are pointing out here. This exuberance for the skeptical point of view is becoming quite strong on WP as the skeptic movement is actively campaigning on the web to enlist and recruit WP editors to further their national agenda. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read over the Fringe Noticeboard today, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"><b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b>, and found it really depressing. It's a very lop-sided discussion board, the participants seem to be in agreement that the goal is to get theories they find unacceptable to be identified as "fringe" and then they can be mocked. It seems like the view of the world is very black and white there. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I have quoted you from this talk page in a recent blog post. While I chose quotes to make a certain point, I made sure to include enough information to avoid making it appear as if you were endorsing one side or the other.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, these talk pages are all public, Craig, so we don't own our words and you are free to use what you find on Wikipedia as long as it is attributed. I appreciate you letting me know and for not misrepresenting me.
 * To be a little confessional, I was trained in the social sciences so my grounding is as a skeptic (everything we studied were aspects of life which were measurable) but my personal belief system is that science can't be used to explain everything (like "meaning"). So, I understand the skeptic's need for evidence and proof but I also know that many important aspects of life are not rational, measurable or scientific. As in most things in life, I think a balance is most appropriate. Thanks again for letting me know, Craig. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. You might be interested to know that my blog has drawn the attention of some psychologists.  One thing I hear repeatedly from them is that researchers are on a whole different planet.  In the day to day job of helping people with their issues and dealing with their emotions, it is often impossible for these health professionals to ignore their own obvious psychic intuitions which come as a result of interactions with their patients. Further, it is not at all advisable to ignore these intuitions because they are almost always extremely helpful.  So those who practice are generally very open to psi, in contrast to researchers who aren't.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes a lot of sense, Craig, it's the difference between theory and practice. Scientists, of all kinds, use hypotheses and run experiments to test the boundaries of theories. The test results can support theory, contradict theory or be inconclusive. And this can vary according to the level of confidence the researcher has in the results. It's levels of abstraction.
 * Practice is something entirely different. A practitioner deals with the concrete, this person, here, now, and their own personal history. They have education and training but their goal is not to prove the truth of falsity of a theory but find a way to help a person heal. This means that, for the most part, most psychologists have an eclectic approach, they have a "toolkit" of concepts, approaches, skills and they try to find the ones that help with that individual. It's a completely different attitude, not one of finding truth but finding what will work. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology
Hi Liz, I'm Andrew Cabral, the guy from Jimmy Wales' page (Hindu nationalism). I just wanted to apologize for the peevish tone with which I'd replied to you. I don't mind admitting that I was irritated just because of your anonymous IP remark. Silly, but there you have it!

Anyway, I trust there are no hard feelings from your side. Shake, shake! (That's hand, not head.)

Sincerely,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.128.126 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Andrew, I was not aware of your comment but thank you for the apology. Happy editing! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You too, Liz, you too! Take care! Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.4.203 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well, this is quite a surprise. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jasper Deng
This is a message to demonstrate to Jasper Deng from https://www.mediawiki.org that I "own" this username. I put in a request to change my username there. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The rename has been done. Have fun editing!--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Jasper! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576986860 your edit] to Chris Innis 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * | Director Oliver Stone

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578126577 your edit] to Nancy Bauer (philosopher) 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * philosophy|political]]/moral philosophy, and philosophy of language thereof, phenomenology, and philosophy in film.