David in DC (talk | contribs) →Sheldrake, redux: new section |
Lou Sander (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
No discussion of Sheldrake will ever be complete without a reference to Dr. Connor Ryall. [http://yareah.com/2013/10/2303-funny-stories-good-vibrrrations-lance-manion/]. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 04:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
No discussion of Sheldrake will ever be complete without a reference to Dr. Connor Ryall. [http://yareah.com/2013/10/2303-funny-stories-good-vibrrrations-lance-manion/]. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 04:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:I think it would be helpful if you'd post something under "Determining level of consensus". Somebody is trying to get a consensus, and they need all the help they can get. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 13:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:11, 22 October 2013
EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care
Welcome!
Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Wikipedia alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Naming conventions
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Policy Library
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
- You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
- If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
- If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008
Archive Two: 22 July 2008 - 2 December 2008
Archive Three: 5 January 2009 - 10 December 2009
Archive Four 24 February 2010 - 8 August 2013
Remarkably extraordinary
Re [1]: watch out you don't get arrested by the GA/MOS police [2] EEng (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
John Hagelin
...delighted to have your input, worry not.(olive (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
- Thanks, olive. I was reacting to "Like it or not." David in DC (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sophie Anderton
Why the sudden interest in this page considering that you have never even edited on this page before? Are you being paid to edit her page directly? please disclose this information. If this is the case you will be in breach of WP:NPOV,WP:ADVOCACY. I will be watching all new edits from your user name very closely. Many Thanks for your time and help on this matter.
Johnsy88 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I try to keep the list of pages with pending edits as short as possible. You'll see in the history that my first edit or two to the page came after reviewing a pending change. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I primarily edit BLP's. So when I get to a BLP by way of a pending change review, I often take an interest. I'm not being paid to edit her page, nor any other page. I've never been paid to edit wikipedia. I DID get a couple of cool t-shirts at a couple of wiki-gatherings. One was at a gathering of wiki-editors at an event at the National Archives. The other was a commemoration of wikipedia's 10th birthday. Please review my edit history. There's plenrty there. I've been editing for years. I hope you'll see that there's nothing there to suggest I'm anything but a long-time, dedicated volunteer.
- Also, thank you for your kind offer to review my edits. I make far to many typos and other various and sundry errors. A personal proofreader would be a really good thing to have. David in DC (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you for your diligent application of WP principles and guidelines at John Hagelin and throughout WP. Your continued contributions to the WP project are greatly appreciated by all. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
Nice work at Sophie Anderton — Keithbob • Talk • 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
Silly stan - blogs are for kids!
Why are you silly stans so determined to make K.Michelle younger than she is? Do you not understand that she was Miss FAMU in 2003 and the Freshman Attendant in 2000? That her own college yearbook identifies her as 18 in the year 2000? You're talking abouta newspaper is needed as proof. That's been provided as a source as well, but you say it's not good enough! We could pull it out of the Tallahasse Democrat and you'd STILL say it's not good enough. Yet the word of a blog is? I'm pretty sure the archives of the University of Florida beat some urban blog. Nothing you do will make her younger than 31, and I will change that date every time you try to - with REAL proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.197.126.208 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Re: video
Hi, thanks for fixing up the article; it looks more canonical now. Re the video, it looked like you didn't notice that the video was already sourced: the second ref for the TEDx paragraph. Whether to put it as an external link is an interesting question. It fails "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" but passes "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting". WP:ELNO Vzaak (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Vzaak: I don't think it belongs in the External Links section. The video doesn't need to be there, even if the narrow exception fits. The video's in the 3/19 Ted blog post ref. My thought is that the 3/14 pTed blog post is a legitimate in-line source for this sentence: "The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog accompanied by this framing." I inserted my ref at the end of the graf, rather than after the penultimate sentence, for layout reasons only, to make the graf less cluttered. But you're right, it does look redundent there, as if it's a duplicative source for the video.
- My edit summary for deleting the youtube ELNO was clear. My edit summary for adding the 2nd TED post? Not so much.
- Thanks again. I've run across too much incivility lately. This bit of back and forth is a welcome tonic. David in DC (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll look for a better secondary source for that fact, rather than trying to shoehorn a second TED blog post in that's liable to be mistaken for redundency. But for now, after tackling some especially horrible prose in another article on a fringe topic (happily, not a BLP) I'm exhausted and headed for bed. I'll close out with my very favorite Teamster salutation: Keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Just sayin'. Vzaak (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks. I'll stop feeding the ducks. David in DC (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Re facepalm, the situation continues to not seem "for real" to me. The user page itself looks like a parody -- "a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral..." -- especially in light of his support for Sheldrake outside of WP. Independent of whether this is "trolling 2.0" or not, he openly says on his page that he is here to conduct social experiments. Using editors as guinea pigs has to break a policy somewhere. It's too weird for me to comprehend, I'm afraid. vzaak (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Civil Services of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- India services. The [[Indian Forest Service]] (IFS), [[Indian Administrative Service]] (IAS) and [[Indian Police Service] (IPS) are the three services set up under this constitutional provision.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
telepathy
Hi, without the "telepathy-type interconnections" quote there's no explanation why his work would involve telepathy and parapsychology. The reader should know their relationship to morphic resonance in order to bring context to the next paragraph about morphic resonance. [Note there is a bare "<quote>" in the article.] vzaak (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out the reason for removing the quote that connects morphic resonance to telepathy and parapsychology. With the subsequent changes the connection is still erased. vzaak (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I also don't understand the wikilinks to parapsychological genetic memory and paranormal collective consciousness. Sheldrake actually argues against the former, saying that genes are not the carrier of memory. And the connection to Gardner Murphy, the latter, eludes me. Sheldrake does talk about collective unconscious, but apparently one of a different flavor. Also, the new material in "Academic career" starts with a quote from an interview in 2000, then indents with a quote from his 1981 book (now reproduced on his website), then unindents back to the 2000 interview. I appreciate the work you've done, and I don't want to sound too critical, but I'm perplexed by these recent edits. vzaak (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Until August 2013 the lead did not even describe morphic resonance. Adding the two direct quotes from here was easy and seemed to suffice; the quotes ultimately come from Presence of the Past and A New Science of Life. It's very hard to go wrong with the author's own words which are attributed to him ("according to Sheldrake..."). On the other hand, "paranormal interconnectedness" directly mischaracterizes his view in the first paragraph, as Sheldrake is adamant that telepathy is not paranormal. vzaak (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree and have edited accordingly. It also solves a prose problem that had been bothering me. "Interconnectedness" is scarcely a word at all. In my ear it seems akin to calling human interaction "interfacing" or the act of writing a book "authorizing." If we're to use a variant of "interconnectedness," I'm much happier to have it in Shaldrake's voice than in Wikipedia's. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. It was just "mysterious" that bothered you? It's the same as the original now, but without "mysterious". "Cherry-picking the most derogatory words, putting them in the lede" is inexplicably harsh treatment for the process I described above. I still don't understand the issue starting from the beginning of this thread. vzaak (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm definitely doing a lousy job of explaining myself. Your first two comments in this thread (9/26) were a response to a bad edit I made late at night on the 25th. I woke up the next morning, read your posts, and re-edited with a specific edit summary refering to "after a good night's sleep and some good talk page advice" - or language very close to that anyway.
- This time, my edit was a response to your most recent posting to my page. (10/5) You immediately improved on my response, with a good edit summary. That's why I was sending you a "thank" at the same time you were sending me a new frustrated plea for explanation.
- "Mysterious" was not my big concern. My concern was that the whole quote, as first configured, didn't reveal to the casual reader (ie one who doesn't read footnotes carefully) that the words were not the harsh criticism of an antagonist, but rather the author's own self-effacing explanation.
- If someone calls me a blind squirel who occasionally finds a nut, that's a harsh insult. If I say the same exact words about myself, it's an acknowledgement of fallibility. That was my objection, not the words themselves, but the relative opacity of their source. I tried to solve that problem - and think I succeeded - with the block-quote further down, but was still left with "paranormal interconnectedness", which I purposely left for another day.
- As for "paranormal interconnectedness", my biggest trouble with it was the word "interconnectedness", which sounded like dreadful prose to me. A stylistic problem. Yours was with "paranormal", a much bigger problem, about which I was blithely oblivious.
- With any luck, I've made myself clearer. Given Murphy's Law, probably not. I'm hoping Murphy's on furlough today. David in DC (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK I get the concern about the possibility of Sheldrake being self-effacing. He could be describing how his colleagues viewed his ideas in order to convey why they did not accept them. However the context is "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species", and the "collective memories within species" part is dead serious -- that's how he describes it for real. Searching through Dogs That Know indicates the quote is OK (although the details have changed over the years (used to be resonance, then fields as channels (which may be the same as resonance, I don't know))).
- I don't understand the attribution issue because the original said "according to Sheldrake"[3], and the footnotes show Sheldrake's name as well. vzaak (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your confusion. ESpecially after re-reading my diff. All I can say is that the fact that the second quote had a different citation made me think "According to Sheldrake" applied only to what came before
itthe first ref and that despite the second footnote clearly showing that the rest of the sentence is also "according to Sheldrake", I didn't get it. It was not a failure of attribution, it was my failure of careful reading. David in DC (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your confusion. ESpecially after re-reading my diff. All I can say is that the fact that the second quote had a different citation made me think "According to Sheldrake" applied only to what came before
- I don't understand the attribution issue because the original said "according to Sheldrake"[3], and the footnotes show Sheldrake's name as well. vzaak (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you like computer porn
User_talk:Citation_bot#September_2013 EEng (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Null, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Reality check, please.
Is this as thoroughly outrageous as I think. Because, as you can see, I'm appalled. David in DC (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Brunei
Hi there, I'm just wondering if "Recognized" is suitable to describe English on the Info-box in regards to the reference used on footnote(b) which has got to do with section (2) of Article 82 on the Consitution http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LOB/cons_doc/dokumen-dokumen_perlembagaan_2008.pdf Alevero987 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno. It seems uncontroversial to me, but I should hasten to add that I know very little about what's controversial about Brunei and what's not. The use of the language of the former colonial power is sometimes a very controversial topic in former colonies.
I see two possible approaches: - I've stricken my advice. After reviewing the page history, it looks like you're alread at the "D" step in WP:BRD. Don't re-insert the edit without achieving consensus on the talk page. Definitely don't edit-war. If consensus proves impossible, there are multiple avenues for dispute resolution on wikipedia. Here's a guide: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
- I'm honored, and a little bit humbled, that you've asked my advice. Thanks for the morning pick-me-up.
- Good luck and happy editing. David in DC (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
PTSD (Post-Dramatic Sockpuppet Disorder)
Wow! How those traumatic memories linger! Just seeing a username beginning with "Ry" gave me heart palpitations. [4] EEng (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S Since I mentioned you: [5]
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Institute of Noetic Sciences may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World''], [[Simon & Schuster]], New York City|New York]] (2007). ISBN 978-0-7432-7695-7</ref> [[meditation]],<ref name=Radin2/> [[consciousness]], [[
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, hi, Bracketbot, I'm David in DC. You're so big and strong! ... ;) EEng (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
- Hussy! :) David in DC (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, hi, Bracketbot, I'm David in DC. You're so big and strong! ... ;) EEng (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Rest assured
Your good faith is not wasted. I just have a tendency to be over dramatic :) - thanks for the good help effort on the article. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it was. And I'm sorely peeved about it. David in DC (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!
Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.
If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
[www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/s/starson54/ifyou.htm] If you could read my mind / what a tale my Talkpage would tell...
I'm beginning to think my psychiatrist wasn't so far off when he said I had psychotic abilities. After all, if there's no such think as telepathy, what then explains that you made this edit [6] three minutes before I made this edit [7]? Huh? HUH? EEng (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Occam's Razor. When I went to thank you, I looked above on your page. I then went to the AfD. But fret not. This is only one datum. I'm sure there are many more pointing the other way. Trust the pshrink. :) David in DC (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yo
Hi, a while ago you made some really good edits to the Sheldrake article which brought more balance and better prose to the article. We seemed to be pretty much on the same page (sorry for the pun).
Thus I'm puzzled by your complaint about my statement here. (BTW you should have notified me for being mentioned in an ANI.) I would like to focus on this because it seems to highlight whatever the issue is. To me, the comment you show is a totally non-noteworthy, uninteresting statement on my part. It's a generic response to obvious violations of WP:NPOV, namely WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Again we're not even talking about WP:FRINGE here; this is just NPOV. I was paraphrasing NPOV when I said, "Your new stab runs afoul of NPOV because it obfuscates the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community".
The analogy I mentioned is a good one, I think. "Teach the controversy" is highly effective propaganda which appeals to people's innate sense of fairness in controversial matters. However, as we know, the reality of the situation is quite different: the vast, overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no controversy. There is simply no debate regarding evolution vs creationism/intelligent design, as far as the scientific community is concerned.
A very similar thing is happening with the intro you had proposed. It eschews the overwhelming view of the scientific community and introduces the framing of "controversy" and "debate". The Discovery Institute and Sheldrake proponents both seek "controversy" framing, in different contexts. I'm not anti-Sheldrake in any hard sense -- he's a nice guy --, however we are obliged to represent the mainstream scientific view in an honest manner. That's really what WP:NPOV, particularly WP:PSCI, means here. Portraying "controversy" where little or none exists is a disservice to readers, even with the aim of being nicer.
Contrary to what you perhaps to think of me, I am all for being nicer in the lead. There must be some way to make it better, but it can't be the dishonest way of misrepresenting mainstream views. Also remember Sheldrake advocates alternative medicine, so this isn't just an abstract issue. vzaak (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my view, the lede that we polished was good. The one I put on Tumbleman's sandbox was to be a starting point for collaboration. No one collaborated. It was stillborn. I denounced Tumbleman's introduction of it to the article and lauded its reversion. Tumbleman's introduction of it appears to be part of his ongoing dispute resolution experiment. I'm done trying to coax him into true collaboration. Fooled me one...etc.
- Our version might have remained stable if he hadn't upset the applecart by inserting it provocatively.
- I've stricken the diff you complain of from the ANI thread. I think additional editing in Tumbleman's sandbox would have been a more helpful response, but so be it. I'm not so sure I've breached any policy by including that diff in a long series of diffs, but I've been wrong before. Hell, I often think six impossible things before breakfast. I'd rather respond positively to your pointing out where I'm in error than insist stubbornly that I'm not.
- My aim is not about nice. It's about treating living people as something special. I do not agree that some collaboratively improved version of my first draft on Tumbleman's page would have taught the controversy. Collaboration would have seen to that. What I put there was quite explicitly not ready for prime time. But it might have been a start. Or, alternatively, it might have called Tumbleman's bluff and kept him off the article page. As he kept crowing, up until that point, he'd made only one insignificant edit to the article. He escalated his experiment, moving from talk page to article space, when my effort to take him at his word failed. David in DC (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK sorry for writing too much on something you already know; I wasn't sure what the issue was and thus I should have written less. I'm not opposed to collaborating on a new lead. That particular lead seemed too far off, though, and there were issues of social, technical, and basic-science competence involved as well. vzaak (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, just noted this discussion. I'm tempted to say 'I told you so.' --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK sorry for writing too much on something you already know; I wasn't sure what the issue was and thus I should have written less. I'm not opposed to collaborating on a new lead. That particular lead seemed too far off, though, and there were issues of social, technical, and basic-science competence involved as well. vzaak (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Faith renewed
Just when my patience with myopic WP:FRINGE zealots was just about worn through, I read this. I sure wish User:IRWolfie- would. David in DC (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think going around calling people zealots is productive? IRWolfie- (talk)
- You say he's calling people zealots like it's a bad thing! EEng (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- In correcting the incorrigible? No. That's what incorrigible means. I'm never going to correct your view of me. If I announced that you'd walked on water, you might well hear it as an accusation of inability to swim. So ringing Pavlov's bell here creates no additional lack of productivity. Between us, productivity's already reached its nadir, its absolute zero. It can go no lower. It is a dead parrot.
- But maybe, if you actually have read (or will read) what Liz wrote, you might be able to conclude that her explanation has merit, while still avoiding cognitive dissonance by being able to dismiss my saying the same thing as one of the infinite monkeys who managed to type Shakespeare, the blind squirrel who happened to find a nut and/or the broken useless watch that's still right twice a day.
- She's right. As to BLP, the skeptics are egregiously wrong.
- I hope I've answered your question. Now I'm going to do something more enjoyable. Like shaving my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil. David in DC (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This...
diff is not a revert. You need to be more careful with how you characterize other's edits, especially when you get that personal. jps (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This dolt is on a self-administered edit-block of at least one week in duration. The embarassing details can be found here.David in DC (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Take a walk in the fresh air. Do some photography. Tidy your room. Design experiments in morphic resonance. Make mayonnaise (really, home made is super). Today's events were ... interesting, and this event is understandable, and your ultimate response is admirable, if slightly ott. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Caaaaalm!
In the meantime have a giggle (I hope) on me. History and traditions of Harvard commencements EEng (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiProjects RfC
When will this RfC close? –Mabeenot (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Oxbridge oddities
You get a BA at Oxford, Cambridge, (and Trinity I think) for an undergraduate science degree, because of the funny traditions of those universities. Let's face it, Rupert Sheldrake wouldn't have been accepted to an Cambridge PhD programme if he didn't have an undergrad degree. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reposting the BLP noticeboard notice on the Sheldrake talk page. I had been wondering why something about that had not be in discussion. Tom Butler (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit war over "been"?
Hi, re [8]
- "Since then, his work has largely centred on..."
- "Since then, his work has been largely centred on..."
We want to describe a continuous action stemming from the past, hence "been", no? "Present Perfect Continuous Tense"? The "been" was removed previously before, but not by you. Maybe I'm losing my grammar marbles. vzaak (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- To my ear, "been" adds nothing. "Omit needless words", per Strunk & White. However, I think it's an extraordinarily unimportant matter and that re-adding "been" would cause no harm. Mine is only one ear (well, two) and yours is/are as good as mine. Van Gogh might have a different take on it. But he's dead, so it's no violation of WP:BLP to call him tone-deaf.
- I think you should change it back. If a kerfuffle erupts, we'll both know that the craziness lies elsewhere. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. Just thunk of something. If you make the change, it should probobly be to "has been centred largely on". "Has been largely centred" sticks an adverb between a form of "to be" and "centred". I think that's Shatner territory. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you guys thought of trying stand-up? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've thought of it every time the beer makes me fall down. But my morphic resonance is kinda foggy today, so I can't tell if vzaak has thought of it. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you guys thought of trying stand-up? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. Just thunk of something. If you make the change, it should probobly be to "has been centred largely on". "Has been largely centred" sticks an adverb between a form of "to be" and "centred". I think that's Shatner territory. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Let the stalker jump in. DinDC is right in the sense that been doesn't changes the tense; what it does is change the voice. mi-mi-mi-miiiii! Do-re-mi-fa-so-... Oops, wrong kind of voice.
Anyway, shifting to the present helps clarify the role of certain words:
- Now his work centers on...
- Now his work is centered on...
The difference is active vs passive: in (1) the work is the thing doing the centering (of itself); in (2) something else is doing the centering (of the work). But the tense is the same.
This is easier to see in my example than in the original example, because in my example work centers becomes work is centered -- adding is while changing centers to centered -- whereas in the original example work has centered becomes work has been centered -- adding been but with no change of centered.
Another way to see this is to note that the original example could be rewritten as:
- "Since then, his work has largely centred on..." (no change)
- "Since then, he has largely centred his work on..." (passive to active, but no change in tense)
Here it's more apparent that they are the same tense. Does that help? EEng (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) (I see I shifted to American spelling. So sue me. And there's nothing wrong with split infinitives and so on.)
- Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists
Isn't it convenient that the vitamin C nut who caused the semi-protection last month shows up again just when "been" has been removed, causing full protection this time? Just asking questions. The Sheldrake article may indeed be a pretext for this war over "been". A secretive guerrilla army of "been" haters on Wikipedia, no doubt. vzaak (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Vitamin C nut" -- obvious code language. Nuts don't have much vitamin C, but "beens" do, so what's going on here is obvious. There may be a sleeper cell of "been" Laden followers at work here. EEng (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sheldrake, redux
No discussion of Sheldrake will ever be complete without a reference to Dr. Connor Ryall. [9]. David in DC (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if you'd post something under "Determining level of consensus". Somebody is trying to get a consensus, and they need all the help they can get. Lou Sander (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)