User talk:PriorQavah

21 Grams experiment
as much as possible the edit needs to be done to have factual content.

Where did you find copyright issues?

My information is from the actual report. What I inserted was actual result and conditions.The version You put back cites a ghost story site that is copyrighted and does not include the actual report. The story you added does not include the actual test The story You submitted does not include the actual test conditions. the story you submitted includes criticism outside the criticism area. PriorQavah (talk) --


 * You're lucky I found this. When you want to contact someone else on Wikipedia you leave a message on THEIR talk page, not your own. Leaving an initial message on your own page is like writing a letter in the mail to yourself. The person you are writing to is not going to get it if you send it to yourself and don't notify them in any way. I only noticed this because I was coming here to leave you a message asking you to stop what you're doing at the article.


 * No offense but as evidenced by the fact you left a message for me on your talk page, you clearly don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. Firstly, you can't copy and paste large texts from the actual report. That's a copyright violation, regardless of whether you put it in inverted commas and attribute it to the report itself. Please do your homework and read Copyright violations.
 * A Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of the subject. You, however, have gone into gross and absurd levels of over-detail. Even if it wasn't a copyright violation, the reader doesn't need to know MacDougall's drawn out quote about why he thought souls have weight, all we need to know is that he did. We don't need the exact measurements for every subject, we just need the overall findings.
 * In order to use a source on Wikipedia, that source needs to satisfy the criteria at WP:RS. There is no requirement that the source needs to contain the entire report itself, so your argument that the "ghost story site" (what does 'ghost story site' even mean???) doesn't have the original report is irrelevant. There is no requirement that it needs it. If every scientific article could only cite sources that contain the entire report rather than a summary of it, Wikipedia would pretty much have to delete 99% of its coverage of experiments. Even scientific papers only refer to other paper's findings, rather than reproducing the papers entirely. Your argument is not justifiable.
 * You have also deleted criticism of the experiment without adequate justification. This appears to be a violation of WP:POV. More disturbingly, you deleted the criticism from the lead. As per MOS:LEAD, the lead of an article needs to summarise the article's contents; if there is a substantial amount of criticism in the article, it is a requirement that this criticism is summarised in the lead.
 * As evidenced by your comment above, and your edits to the article, you have an extremely poor understanding of grammar, capitals and spaces. This is an encyclopedia with high standards; your terrible writing is not improving the article.
 * Lastly, the article you are writing has already been peer reviewed and has been promoted as a good article, meaning it has been accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you want to make drastic changes to something that has already been peer-reviewed and accepted as Wikipedia's best pieces of content, you need to obtain consensus on the article's talk page first. Trying to make the edits again after it has been explained to you why they are not appropriate is as violation of WP:BRD, and could be considered starting an edit war. Logging out of your account and making the changes again from an IP address is a violation of WP:SOCK. Repeating any of this behaviour will likely result in your account being blocked from editing. I trust these explanations will bring an end to your disruptive and un-constructive edits. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done my own reports, but mostly engineering type where facts are all important. After all it is called an encyclopedia, and the rules do call for accuracy. If we let one thing leak in that is not true in engineering on a car, it will be millions of faulty cars. As a rule we strive for accuracy. I did not get that feeling when I read your article and looked at your references on the 21 grams experiment. Disrespect is what I feel when You do not use Doctor MacDougall's title. What I feel when data is buried with hype that there is some underlying anger or impossible wall that will not look fairly at the information.

I have studied the experiment also. Seems to me the 21 grams (actually 3/4 oz) is the weight of the first person tested. When I read the account of the tests, I felt astonishment in his words the first time. It makes me feel he was not predisposed to an outcome.

The other seem to vary and where they were being attacked Doctor MacDougall discounted the result,,from looking at his writing and knowing these kind of people, possibly out of frustration or anger. then there is the one test again where they got a measurement but death at just the moment they slid the weight on the balance beam. Now you know what that slide is for ,on a scale, the fine adjustment. so even though the two were discounted as not within spec. , there were measurements. There are 52 cites in the real report.

Is there any special reason you chose to use the version at the Ghost site to link? (The site has a recent copyright at the bottom.) PriorQavah (talk) -


 * In answer to your question, I didn't add that document there. Someone else did, but the link was fine. The fact it has the word 'copyright' down the bottom means nothing. It's not necessarily a copyright violation to add an external link to something that is copyrighted, but it's definitely a copyright violation to copy and paste from the source and add it to the article. I've been writing Wikipedia for 11 years. I know what the rules are. I'm not violating any. You on the other hand, seem to be on a mission to violate as many as possible.
 * By repeatedly using 'Doctor' MacDougall's title, you have violated yet another guideline. Please read MOS:SURNAME. It is a violation to repeatedly refer to someone as 'Doctor' or any other professional title. I've refereed to him as a physician at his initial mention, then only by his last name, as per the accepted standard.
 * Disrespect is what I feel when you make multiple errors writing a Wikipedia article because you didn't have the common decency to do any research whatsoever into the accepted standards, then have the audacity to criticise me for adhering to the rules.
 * I believe the article is objective and neutral. The article has been peer reviewed and accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you disagree with how it is written, please start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding your concerns (and please start signing your comments - see here for instructions: Signatures) and wait to see what other editors say so that a consensus can be reached about the issue. And just so it's clear, if you make any attempts to find people to support your proposal on the talk page this would be considered a violation of Canvassing and would likely result in an immediate ban. I feel like I have spent enough time explaining why your edits went completely against Wikipedia's standards, and have no desire to discuss this with you any further here. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

--

Thank you for your candid comments. IO can see your editing is near and dear to your heart by the threatening and exclusionary manner of commentary. I assure you I am only adding what is necessary for the experiment to have meaning. As for the copyright you claim I have violated of a 100 year old report, I think you are off base, rather it seems to be an attack on fellow editors. I know this because at the same time you bring in a page with a recent copyright, the guy is claiming he wrote it himself and it is not the real thing. I can tell real information by the content. Fake has no data, is just that personal commentary. an only imagine you cited it because it is not real. I fear you copy and make it your own. everything is a threat and attack to you to keep the information hidden. This is not acceptable on an encyclopedia. Perhaps to a casual observer your criticism of the experiment rates good, (as a sort of joke story) but to a educated person this is not acceptable. PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah


 * You're not adding "what is necessary for the experiment to have meaning". You're adding what YOU think is necessary. What YOU think is necessary and what is actually necessary are two different things. This is evidenced by your lack of understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines as clearly documented in your comments and edits. You thought it was necessary to constantly refer to MacDougall as 'Doctor' out of respect for him; that was a clear violation of MOS:SURNAME. You thought it was OK to delete criticism from the lead; that was a clear violation of WP:LEAD. You thought it was OK to add a large quote to the lead; that was a clear violation of WP:LONGQUOTE, regardless of whether the copyright of the original report has expired. I could go on with other examples but hopefully the point that what you think is acceptable and what is actually acceptable are two different things is being made clear.
 * It's not 'my' criticism of MacDougall's report. The criticism comes from leading experts and highly reputable sources: physician Augustus P. Clarke, Karl Kruszelnicki, Robert L. Park, Bruce Hood (psychologist), Richard Wiseman and Snopes (a fact-checking website). The fact you want to relegate the astute criticim from educated professionals and established fact-checkers to a 'sort of joke story' speaks volumes. Trying to hide the opinions of educated experts because it threatens your personal feelings about this experiment is what's truly unaceptable to an educated person.
 * For the last time I didn't add that report to the article. What part of that don't you understand? Why do you have to lie about it? And the 'copyright' word down the bottom is clearly the default disclaimer that appears at the bottom of each page of his website informing that his website is copyrighted. Perhaps he should have removed the disclaimer since the only thing on that particular page is someone else's work, but very few people would make the leap to interpret that as him trying to convince his readers he now owns the copyright of MacDougal's report. But purely to stop you complaining, I've changed the link to Macdougal's original report to one that doesn't do that.
 * As the instructions I showed you clearly stated, you're supposed to sign your comments at the end of the comment, not the beginning. And you definitely should NOT go back and sign old quotes with current timestamps! That makes it look like you wrote your comments AFTER my replies, which (like your attempts to edit the article itself) only results in making everything look confusing. And you don't have to write your name again at the end of the signature; the signature writes your name for you. I've just gone through and removed the incorrect timestamps from your retroactively places signatures and have also moved your signatures to the end of your comments so it doesn't appear confusing to anyone who reads this talk page in the future. Please also read Indentation to learn how to format replying on talk pages in the future; don't place large underlining at the end of your comments please.
 * I've spent more than enough time trying to explain to you how to edit within Wikipedia's guidelines. Accordingly, I am now no longer watching your talk page, which means I will not see any further messages you write here. If you still have grievances, please start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)