User talk:Barleybannocks

something here

Pseudoscience sanctions notice
--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have reverted three times today at the Rupert Sheldrake article. You are already aware that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Such behavior is disruptive. Consider this a warning that if you continue to engage in such conduct, now or in the future, you may be sanctioned without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what rule you're referring to. I am also unaware of my breaking any. Please elucidate. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 is referring to a rule in Wikipedia about edit warring. WP:3RR is considered the bright line (but, in some articles, there is WP:1RR imposed as well). I have taken issue with Bbb23's notices of users (including myself) today for edit warring. It is, I think, poor form to accuse a user of edit warring without referring to the diffs and explain why they are reverts if it is not obvious. In your case, Barleybannocks, I would not consider all your edits today to be reverts, personally, but I cannot tell what Bbb23 was thinking because the notices do not include enough information to divine this. I have asked Bbb23 to stop acting as an administrator here because I do not think this sort of threatening behavior is helpful. Hope this explains some things. jps (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see, but by my count I have only reverted twice: once today and once yesterday (both within 24hrs though). Thanks for letting me know the rule. I will endeavour to not revert at all, but would still like Bbb23 to clarify since I want to be absolutely sure what counts as a revert.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all three of us who were notified today (yourself, User:Vzaak, and myself) deserve some clarification. jps (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I seemed to have hit a nerve with my criticism of the administrator, as now I am requested no longer to post on User:Bbb23's user talkpage. You can see my analysis in this diff. In short, I pretty much agree with your argument. jps (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Sheldrake sources
Can you please post them separately, either on my talk page or here. I'm struggling a little might just be a bit tired (not emotional). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Have been a bit sidetracked with other things. Will put together a list with links on the talk page of the sheldrake article in the next day or so.Barleybannocks (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR
I'm sympathetic to your view that 3RR is poorly named. Early in my editing career I was informed that I was in violation of or close to violating 3RR. I was stunned because I hadn't reverted (in the ordinary dictionary sense) once. Then I read the rule, and realized it was far broader than I had assumed. As Bbb23 notes, the rule has a long history, and if anything is done, it would be to change the name to confirm to the usage, not the other way around. &mdash; Sphilbrick ( talk) 18:51, 20 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * (( Added the name of the person who left you this message, which was forgotten when they left it, and SineBot was asleep at the wheel. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)  ))

Barley & Bannock
Your name intersects some of my Wikipedia edits. Through some sort of other editing, I got interested in bannocks and made some contributions to the Bannock article. I also got interested, I don't remember how, in Bere (grain) and started an article on it. All that led to my getting some bere meal from some barley experts in the U.S. My wife ended up making a bannock out of it, which we ate. We liked what she made, but we don't know if it was a proper beremeal bannock, since we'd never seen or tasted any sort of bannock before. Wikipedia makes strange bedfellows. Lou Sander (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lou, I'm shocked! Telling barleybannocks that you and your spouse often enjoy devouring both barley and also bannocks!  No threats here, this is wikipedia!!  :-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm notifying everyone to whom this Arb's request applies. Please consider responding.David in DC (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconding the request to consider responding. Need not be long-winded, a couple pertinent sentences, may well trump verbosity.  That said, nobody is WP:REQUIRED; totally is up to you.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning
You are a single purpose account and your editing of is consistently tendentious. The article falls under the purview of previous arbitration, I will ask you nicely once to make no edits to the article without first achieving consensus. If you won't abide by that I will have to go with the ban that several people have already suggested to me.

You are not, it seems, able to perceive that obdurate insistence on your preferred wording is not "compromise", because you don't understand that your POV is not a compromise or neutral POV. This is normal for new editors whose single focus is one contentious article, but long experience indicates that it rarely ends well.

So, this should help you to avoid revert warring with the world and his dog, as has been going on thus far. Propose specific changes on the talk page and wait for road agreement (i.e. not just the two people whose views you like) or leave it to someone else. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unbalance
You've talked about a BLP where 20% of the copy is about the person and 80% is about their critics, including quotes, citations, name calling, etc. It is puzzling, but not surprising, to me that this is allowed to continue. I've seen it before in other articles about controversial people. I used to work on Ann Coulter, a lightning-rod U.S. political commentator. She's like Sheldrake, in that she's a sharp and thoughtful person who inspires controversy everywhere she goes. People would mention the smallest incident or quote from her, then spend paragraph after paragraph detailing every piece of criticism that anybody ever wrote about it.

My theory (or hypothesis, or notion, or crazy lunatic woo) about this behavior is that people with an us-vs.-them mentality will see some of this stuff coming from one of their betters, feel their own ideas threatened by it, and react by combing the literature for vituperation, also from their betters. Reason, balance, neutrality, BLP, etc. mean nothing to these righteously indignant editors. It's kind of like feeding behavior in a pack of dogs--they just can't stop piling on. Whatever causes it, it's a Wiki-phenomenon that I suspect is fairly widespread. Lou Sander (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your points Lou, and sympathise. No doubt there are a hundred and one things that could be said about what is going on, but I'd rather not speculate about it, or editor's motives/MO here. No doubt there are PhDs somewhere investigating exactly that - good luck to them - they have their work cut out.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 74something is adamant about being nice. I've taken his advice to heart, and am a lot nicer than I was a few days ago (which was pretty nice already). As for me, I'm trying mightily to stay on the sidelines. As for you, keep up the good work. Lou Sander (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A Beremeal Bannock Star for you
For persistence, clear thinking, and clear exposition in the land of discombobulated ergot eaters. Lou Sander (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
My response to the above for the record.

I don’t intend to offer any defence because I don’t think a defence is necessary. Instead I would like to ask the adjudicators here a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say? (I would not, for example, have argued as I had had I known this was the case and had it been made clearer in policy/guidelines etc.)

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, [1] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [2]

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.[3]

Adam Lucas, [4] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.[5]

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.[6]

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [7]

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [8]

Rudolph E. Tanzi,[9] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [10]

Neil Theise,[11] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [12]

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [13]

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [14]

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other WP:DEADHORSE I have been flogging is that Sheldrake is a biologist and this well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact should not be removed from the first sentence of the lede as it constantly is, [15] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [16] [17] [18] [19]

All in all, then, I feel I have been arguing for the inclusion of a few well sourced points, and the amount of discussion on the talk page generated is purely a function of the total disregard for sources of some of the editors there. I await your responses to the questions above.

Please note this is not a point about content per se, but about Wikipedia policy as regards content using this as an example.

Thank you.

Edit counts for Sheldrake articles
FYI, 74 has compiled an interesting table with edit counts for pages you are no longer involved with. You can see it HERE Lou Sander (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Comment
I agree with your recent comment on my talk page. For a terrifying moment, I thought it was from a BarNey, not a BarLey. Sheesh! That other guy is firmly in this category. Another principle of life for me is that nobody is a complete fool, idiot, a-hole, etc. After observing the Sheldrake stuff, I'm thinking about abandoning it. I have to keep quoting scripture to myself, over and over until it becomes tendentious: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Lou Sander (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I happened to run into List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. I looked at a number of the topics on the list, and didn't see a single one that had received the treatment that Sheldrake has. In some cases it was hard to tell that there was even a clear, strong message that the subject is pseudeoscience, as is apparently required by WP:Pseudoscience, WP:FRINGE/PS and the like. Interesting.

Well, I'm off to my chiropractor for my weekly magnet therapy treatment. His wife is a psychoanalyst and traditional Chinese medicine practitioner who likes to watch Ancient Astronauts on the History II channel. Both of them used to be biologists, I think. There are plenty of sources who vouch for that fact, but I'm not so sure they are reliable. Lou Sander (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

happy proleptic gregorian increment
Saw your WP:TEAHOUSE invite. The irony, eh? :-)    If you feel like messing with other stuff around here, your help would be appreciated.  As you've learned, there are serious problems.  Anyhoo, I'm kinda guessing you're glad to be shut of the basket-case, or if not glad exactly, maybe wary-and-validly-having-a-wee-little-bit-of-bad-taste-in-the-back-of-your-mouth.  Let me know on my talkpage please, if your WP:CHOICE happens to change in 2014.  Thanks for trying hard to improve wikipedia, 'twas appreciated.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)