Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 June 28

= June 28 =

Does any of this mean anything?
How can I get information on whether the gibberish in this article has real-world meaning or not? Requests for cleanup over many years have gone unheeded. Does Wikipedia have psychology experts who can comment? Bracha_L._Ettinger Equinox ◑ 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Humm. Not going to comment just yet but is worth a read; even though I got lost after the first period after the first sentence. Which came before everything that came after. Which all comes together (eventually) to paint a holistic verbalized image of I know not what. Aspro (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you listened to Bracha Ettinger lecture? Blooteuth (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why don’t you do the research and mould the article into sense? Aspro (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be somewhat helpful if that wall-of-text was split into paragraphs. It would still be mumbo-jumbo, but easier to read. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just what the world desperately needs: easy-to-read mumbo-jumbo. Oh wait, we already have Plain English tax laws ...  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that anybody presenting a theory, for it is only that, would do so in a way that would be intelligble to most people without the need to constantly check the meaning of so many abstruse words. Or perhaps I am way more stupid than I thought. People often are! Richard Avery (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While whiling away the hours the other day, I downloaded the 150-page proof by Andrew Wiles of Fermat's Last Theorem, to see how much of it I could grasp with my increasingly rusty 35-year-old degree in mathematics (et al). I did not get past the first paragraph. The time has come for a "Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for Idiots". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However if you read Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem you will have a very broad overview of how the proof works, and what it is about -- Q Chris (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I read that first, and my appetite was whetted for the finer details. But it remains unslaked. There must be a middle path. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an award for Wikipedia's worst article? If so this could be nominated! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We already have such an illustrious award ! It can be  esily summonsed up by evoking, even the   Flying Spaghetti Monster, to grant us the holy privilege of resorting to a   sacred  triphthong. To the uninitiated reading here, (whom may have not  found how to gain access to our very un-secret inner circle),  we refer to this award  as simply  AfD. For something to move beyond hypothesis to a theory there has to be some underling evidence. So even his holynesss make more sense to my brain than this. Aspro (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)