User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/565

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  Read! Talk! 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  Read! Talk! 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  Read! Talk! 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  <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.

Deleted contribs
Yo, Liz, I saw your reply on ANI, and decided to bring it here for further discussion, only because it's kinda off-topic from the point of the ANI thread. Anyway, I'm not really sure what your point is. I mean, anyone's edits can be deleted through page deletion; I have 2,168 deleted contribs, and you have 73. I suppose you're right in the sense that an IP address may, on some level, have fewer deleted contribs than a user account (simply because IP addresses cannot create articles in main space), but that doesn't mean they're immune to them, nor that they're immune to being blocked due to them. IPs can (and have) created articles in the Talk: namespace, and they're allowed to create articles at AfC, too, so they can still create articles that can then be deleted. Not to mention that they can make edits to articles that have been created by others that are then deleted; as one example, it's not unknown for people to contribute an obviously inappropriate article and then, when it is nominated for speedy deletion, they log out and edit the page to be deleted as an IP address, to create the illusion of support and to evade the restriction that article authors cannot remove deletion tags from their own articles. And of course, registered usernames are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. By the way, in the future, if you come across one of these accounts, you can use a tool on the toolserver (here) to look up a user's contribution count, and this will also give you a deleted contribs count. So yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional information, Writ Keeper. That whole conversation got off-track but that's not unusual on the noticeboards. Some Editor comes in with a specific complaint and people end up debating some other point. I appreciate you addressing my question. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake?
I hope was a mistake? --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for pointing it out to me so that I could undo it, regentspark. I was using STiki and it doesn't give the user very much context, or mentions that I was reverting a revert. Thanks again for catching that. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Friendly heads up
Hi Liz, just thought to mention that in this edit you removed part of a comment you made that had already been responded to. In this instance I don't care, and likely no one else will either, but for future you may want to consider striking the comment rather than removing per WP:REDACT. Cheers, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b>. I'll undo it. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks
Hi Liz - thanks for the cat cleanup on a lot of the philosopher articles I've put up recently. I'll make a greater effort to get them in the right set of cats from the get-go in the future. Also... your Jimbo.. your Jimbo... it's staring at me.... :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well, Kevin I do a lot of work with categorization. I find it satisfies my need for putting things in order, I learn a lot and there are some big projects that need to be done regarding gender categorization. For a while, I was picking a nationality and changing all of the "actors" to "male actors" since the powers that be decided to use "actresses" so we need to place men in a similar gendered category.
 * I'm not sure what led me to look at philosophers but I noted there were only about 225 women philosophers currently in that category, so that is a manageable problem that I could work on. For example, there is another category change I need to get to eventually that has over 1200 articles to change and that just seems like such a large number to take on. Maybe one day!
 * Regarding Jimbo, I know people hate animated gifs but I thought that one was so funny and, since you have to linger on the page a few moments before he pops in, not everyone would see it. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think it is great you are working on articles on women philosophers. Some of the ones that Wikipedia does have are no more than stubs. I'd love to know more about Collegium of Black Women Philosophers, that sounds like an interesting group. I'll see if they have an online presence. L.
 * Only 225, and I've written probably 30 of them in the recent past... kind of depressing ;) The Collegium does have some online presence, and there's been enough coverage of them in various places that they'd pass the GNG fairly easily. I'll hopefully get around to writing an article about them eventually, but decided to go ahead and start with people.  Further depressing fact pulled from an article by Kathryn Gines: there are less than thirty Black women with phds in philosophy working in academia in the US today.  You could, quite literally, fit all of them in a classroom together. Black capitalized per Kathryn's logic in her essay about the founding of the collegium. Let me know if you feel like writing about the Collegium (or anything else) and need me to pull articles for you if you don't have access to an academic library :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent half of my life in academia but right now, I'm not affiliated with a university and my own library is boxed up so references are inaccessible (and I don't have much faith in online sources unless it's news). Maybe when I get more confidence, I'll work on article creation. Even though I see hundreds of badly written, insubstantial, unreferenced articles as I traverse through Wikipedia, I've seen newly-created, starter articles get deleted every day. So, I want to make sure I have the necessary resources to write a decent article.
 * But thanks for the offer! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)