|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 10 days may be automatically moved.|
And there is also This archive.
- 1 Barnstar
- 2 Mammootty
- 3 PEAR Lab
- 4 india-forums's credibility
- 5 Formal mediation has been requested
- 6 Arbcom notice
- 7 Edit War
- 8 Improving Corona del Mar High
- 9 Undid revision?
- 10 Revert at
- 11 Shahid Kapoor
- 12 Sean Lien
- 13 Aagadu
- 14 Request for Arbitration declined
- 15 my bad on gg talk page revert
- 16 That is my final argument
- 17 Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
- 18 A9
- 19 Slice and dice
- 20 geckos
- 21 Gilbert Ling Association Induction Hypothesis
- 21.1 Overall Comments
- 21.2 Addressing Notability
- 21.2.1 Does the article contain reliable third-party sources?
- 21.2.2 Does the AIH meet requirements to have significant independent coverage or recognition from reliable and recognized peer reviewed publicationsor credible and authoritative books?
- 21.2.3 Credible and authoritative books
- 21.3 Reverts I disagree with
- 21.3.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099519&oldid=630099398
- 21.3.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630104190&oldid=630102607
- 21.3.3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098281&oldid=630098235
- 21.3.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098572&oldid=630098493
- 21.3.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098611&oldid=630098572
- 21.3.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098887&oldid=630098611
- 21.3.7 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099249&oldid=630098887
- 21.3.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099398&oldid=630099249
- 22 Notice
- 23 Request for mediation rejected
Dude now check the main lead. Every thing mentioned is sourced and all sources are reliable. please check before reverting. myself cleaned unwanted content.now the article looks perfect. Thanks Harirajmohanhrm talk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC).
Hi: When you get a chance, could you help follow up on the notes at Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab? I absolutely agree that this stuff ain't science, but is rather more of an academic/cultural curiosity. I'd like to get the background/funding into the same tone/style as many of the other parapsychology entries, like Perrott-Warrick Fund for example. Per yr comment, it doesn't have to be in the lede of course. We should also try to deal with the WP:BLP and WP:SCAREQUOTES item, in the absence of evidence of actual malicious intent. Tnx! jxm (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just checking back with you on this item. I was thinking of reinserting some of the background/funding material into the body instead of the lede. As you pointed out, it's not quite appropriate there. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You are still sure that it is an unreliable citation? I just tagged at one place. As you were supporting the blacklisting of this website, like 2 years ago. I wanted to ask again. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bladesmulti: i still see nothing at http://www.india-forums dot com/about_us.asp which indicates they place any value on fact checking and editorial oversight. and the site is still on the black list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues in Talk:Gamergate controversy 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—
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Humsafar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Turgan Talk 15:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Improving Corona del Mar High
I agree that these pop culture references now would fit under heading "Campus Culture," but the fit seems odd juxtaposed with these controversies. Other ideas? --Dalton D. Hird 16:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I had recently added to the page Derp. I understand that the article has been the home of much past vandalism, yet my contribution was not at all vandalism in any form. I cited my addition to the page, and the citation was reasonable. Was this a mistake or something? If I need to add another citation for more evidence, I can do so (the HCAM site also proves my addition as true). If the revert was automatic or something similar, I am not mad at all. I am just confused! Please respond to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your time! Squiddaddy (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Frankly, I don't think Derp Snootsly is notable enough, but I'd be interested to see what TRPOD thinks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have found a legitimate blue-link landing page that I can link Derp Snootsly to (the section of the Hopkinton, Massachusetts page on "The Author Side" and "Derp and Merp"). I could not find a separate article dedicated to the character, but I was not surprised (not many television shows or book series do have separate articles for each character). I hope this will do, because I learned of the phrase "Derp" from reading "Derp and Merp." That is why I even added the character in the first place! If you have any questions, just respond on my talk page. Thanks so much, Squiddaddy (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Squiddaddy: you have to go four levels deep before there is anything close to "legitimate" - from the city, to its non notable cable channel to a blurb on channel to a character on the blurb- that is not a "legitimate" landing place. By that logic my runaway snot of a dog would be able to have a redirect because you can go from the city to the city services to the dog catcher who has become very familiar with my dog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain your revert at Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, or undo your revert? Tamravidhir explicitly requested my help, and that edit was to be the first of a set of copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:NeilN If he had actually said that, it would've been followed by other reliable sources like Times, NDTV, etc. I don't think that he has actually said it, if you are going to find another secondary source for this information, there are a few blogspot blogs and that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry not to respond more clearly! No non-Chi-wiki source says Sean Lien born in Taiwan. The article cited by other editor about accusation that Sean born in northern not southern Taiwan. Confusion all based on Chi-wiki. Lien doesn't deny birth in US. Dispute seems to be about where he "grew up." I guess he wants to seem more Taiwanese and emphasize connection to Taipei (north). But not like Obama. Current president not born in Taiwan; everyone knows. Not a law problem here. Just about how people feel. Concerns a fact. So easy to sort out. Relevant thing is that all published reports, except Chin-wiki, say born in US. His dad was a student at the time. So not a big issue. His campaign info talks about where he "grew up." Thanks!Taiwansov (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There are many test edits being done on the article Aagadu. Many IPs and users are unable to accept the film's failure which may affect the article in terms of neutrality. For maintaining it, i want to remove these lines from the top. They are :
- IB Times stated that the film received "decent" reviews.
- The film became the highest weekend opening Indian film in the U.S. box office.
The first one would be placed in the Critical Reception while the second one would be retained in the Overseas Box office. Please suggest me what to do in this case whether i can do it or no with reasons. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been. Feel free to see for potential suggestions on moving forward.
my bad on gg talk page revert
My bad on revert. Had thought I had clicked elsewhere in watchlist on small screen device, did not see that it took a click as a rollback option. Was purely unintentional. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That is my final argument
I just object to having what I wrote in a discussion shut down.
Incidentally, your pen name makes you seem sadistic, given that you will be in conflict with people. Because of that pen name, it is hard to discern whether you may be a person with some integrity or just someone who delights in destroying. But I will allow that you may be sadistic.--Reidme (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see that you dont ascribe to WP:AGF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
|Please carefully read this information:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
You tagged several songs with WP:CSD#A9. Unless the articles are untrue, in which case you need a different tag, they are not eligible for A9 because the artist or artists have articles on Wikipedia. Please be more careful using this tag. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Gekkos of Zimbabwe DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your invaluable Remarks on article. I have two questions 1. How you I retrieve the article Userfied by Alexf ? 2. If I were to title my article Endemic Geckos of Zimbabwe would it be more acceptable ? As vangenie says Geckos dont recognise human borders by they do recognise geography and exclusive habitats i.e. endemicity....the word endemic in embedded in the text several times DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Slice and dice
Hey TRPoD - do you have any interest in taking your finely honed machete to clean this up? I've certainly seen worse, but it checks all the boxes: unsourced personal info, crappy sources, and ridiculous puffery (DYK she has "previously expressed a desire to win the Palme d'Or"?) I double dog dare you. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Gekkos of ZimbabweAfroedura transvaalica Dear RedPenofDoom Thank you for your comments. I have tried to improve these articles (above) as you suggest...like all of wikipedia its a work in progress....as is my ability to understand the wiki protocols and formatting language. I can see the points made about zimbabwe (that does not have a great deal of endemicity .....it does though have endemic geckos).....in my article the species are listed in red.....the articles about the gecko genera also have the same species listed in red i.e. they are stubs or starters.....i intend to develop these stubs....(two have turned blue as I added to them) ...not because I am interested in those huge genera but more because I am interested in Zimbabwe's herpetofauna....i feel sure that others will see this as a useful contribution ...the british library and wikipedia are full of 'snails of fiji' or 'birds of east anglia' types of research.... does they need editing, collating into larger topics or can they stand on their own censured. The original administrator who deleted this suggested contacting Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles which I have done ...... as yet they havent replied....for some guidance. Thank you for your contribution Clive DrC.Humphreys (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Gilbert Ling Association Induction Hypothesis
Within a period of 15 minutes you swing your scythe and remove 1/3rd of the article with no pre-discussion in the talk page and not justifiable comments (See below). I believe this is breaking the three revert rule. There was no discussion beforehand of these major edits contrary to WP:Edititing Policy Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss
You then go on to edit other articles and coming back to the AIH article and perhaps speed read for about 5 minutes decide that the whole theory is a wingnut theory and not notable saying that in 50 years the only one who has written about this is Ling.
Notability can be expressed in the following questions and answers
Does the article contain reliable third-party sources?
Yes, the article contain 36 cites not written by Ling from reliable third-party sources. Of the 44 cites, 26 are from Ling. The criticism of Ling section is not complete but will add approx. 16 additional independent secondary source citations, so this will bring number of third party sources to approx 57% of all the cites.
However "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
Ling has over 120 articles in pubmed and has been published in a number of peer reviewed journals such as Journal of Cellular Physiology, The Journal of General Physiology, Nature, Science, Proc Natl Acad Sci and Biophysical Journal (See full list below).
A Google Search for the term "Association Induction Hypothesis" in google books between 1980 and present returns almost 100 separate credible and authoritative books. These include the following books :
I contend that this satisfies this aspect of the notability guidelines.
List of papers submitted to Peer-Reviewed Journals
List of Papers independent of Ling submitted to peer reviewed scientific Journals
So, the contention appears to be that the Association Induction Hypothesis has not received sufficient attention from mainstream science which includes the peer-review process and this disbars it from having an entry in wiki. If this is the case then the entry on Einstein should be revised because only 1 of his 300 published papers was peer reviewed. Examples of papers that were rejected by peer reviewers and journals but later became some of the most important scientific papers of recent years include the Krebs article on the citric acid cycle, possibly the most important single article in modern biochemistry, was initially rejected by the peer review process. The work of S. A. Berson, MD, and Yalow on radioimmunoassay, which, like Krebs' studies, eventually led to a Nobel Prize, was initially rejected for publication.
Reverts I disagree with
Of the 44 cites, 26 are from Ling. The criticism of Ling section is not complete but will add approx. 16 additional independent secondary source citations, so this will bring number of secondary sources to approx 57% of all the cites
Comment: You revert the whole article (Some 62,000 bytes or 24 pages) to a redirect back to Gilbert Lings wiki page with the comment "non notable wingnut theory , in 50 years the only one who has written about this is ling, redirect to author"
This article was started by me in April 2014 and it is now Oct 2014 and represent many hours of research). I do not even know what is meant by a wingnut theory. Can you please provide evidence or cites for your opinion that this theory is not notable. Are you for example a biochemist? or scientist? What qualifies you for this opinion or what did you read to come to this conclusion? Please enlighten me as you have made no attempt to engage with me either my User talk page or the articles Talk page. If you had you would have seen a list of 18 cites from independent third-party reliable and verifiable scientists in the field. This is in addition to the 34 third party cites already in the article.
Comments: In this revision the list of published books by Ling are removed. This makes absolutely no sense, the WIKI article is about his Association Induction Hypothesis which is what all of his published books are about. I don't see the need to withhold this information. As a precedent in the Newtons Laws Of Motion page there is a section Further Reading And Works Cited where Newton's publications are listed.
Comments: In this revision the term Scientific Theory is replaced with the term ‘proposal’.
This is not a truthful and accurate word to describe Ling’s 50 years career as a professional scientist using the scientific method to test and falsify his theory. According to the Wiki entry for Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
“I studied the proton resonance emissions from cell water. Recent NMR work of Cope (2), Hazlewood et al (3), and Bratton et al (4) has provided fresh insight into the physical nature of cell water. These authors have independently concluded that the decreased NMR relaxation times observed for cell water relative to distilled water (Tables 1 and 2) are due to the existence of a highly ordered fraction of cell water in which the protons of the water molecules have correlation times substantially less than the Larmor period. The reduction of the correlation times is presumably due to the adsorption of water molecules at macromolecular interfaces, findings that are consistent with the proposal by Ling (5) that intracellular water (endosolvent) exists as multiple polarized layers adsorbed onto cell proteins....The results suggest that this technique may prove useful in the detection of malignant tumors.”
On Nov 9 1977 Dr. Damadian wrote a letter to Gilbert Ling describing the moment when the first MRI image of human body was obtained “On the morning of July 3 at 4:45 A.M….we achieved with great jubilation the world’s first MRI image of the live human body. The achievement originated in the modern concepts of salt water biophysics, on which you are the grand pioneer with your classic treatise, the association-induction hypothesis.”
I do not agree with the removal of the terms theory of the cell created by Gilbert Ling, a cell physiologist and biochemist. This gives an appropriate initial context to the article e.g. it is about a theory of the cell (there are others and a history hence the link) by someone who is a verifiably a cell physiologist and biochemist, that is a professional scientist not just some layperson. You seem intent on denying or minimizing these facts for some unknown reason, your comment “appropriate maybe for ling's page, but not here” does not fit the proposed changes
I agree with removal of the phrase AIH is a unifying theory of life that has the potential to explain all life phenomena on the basis of the properties and
Comments: Removal of the section Overview of the Theory with the comment “not a reliably published source, not a how to”.
Ling’s theory is complicated so I think a summary or overview is warranted for those who don’t want to get into more detail. This section has been approved by Gilbert Ling himself as being accurate but I cannot cite an email, so what should be done??
Comments: Removal of the section Beginning of the Theory.
This short section sets the historical stage of how in 1947 Gilbert Ling failed to find evidence for the membrane (pump) theory and thus spent his whole life finding and documenting evidence against the mainstream view. His AIH theory is diametrically opposed to the mainstream view and removing mention of this would make the article extremely biased and unbalanced. Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source
Comments: Removal of the section Evidence Against the Membrane Pump Theory.
I disagree with the section being characterized as being irrelevant or a tangential subject as described by Coatrack. The article is about Ling's AIH theory and an essential part of that theory is an attempt to disproof the prevailing membrane theory. e.g. Ling following the scientific method to disproof an hypothesis. All his books and papers have sections on the experiments he claims as evidence against membrane pump theory. Nobody in the right mind would take him seriously as a scientist or his theory seriously if he did not have experiments that attempt to 'prove the inadequacies of the prevailing membrane pump theory. This to me would be like the Spherical Earth wiki page having no mention of the Flat Earth theory. Removing this section severely blinds the reader to why indeed there is an alternative theory in the first place and its credibility is severely diminished and I don't understand the reasons for removing it.
Comments: Removal of modern day cites (2000 onwards) in particular through the work of Gerald Pollack.(2001, 2013) and Martin Chaplin on structured water and in the works of Mae Wan Ho and Vladimir Matveev. that purport to support the AIH Theory with the comment "no indication any of these are about the subject of this article" SYN.
As has been clearly stated in the article a key aspect of the AIH theory is polarized-oriented multilayer theory of cell water. All the cites listed specifically mention Ling in relation to this theory of water so this is not an attempt to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is directly relevant, for example in this cite are the words "In recent years three types of observations have given strong support to the PM theory".
Furthermore, Ling is often characterized as being a relic of the 50s, 60s and 70s and not having any supporters since then, indeed your final revert which is to shut down this article and redirect to Ling's page says as such as shows your ignorance on the matter.."Non notable wingnut theory, in 50 years the only one who has written about this is ling". This is factually inaccurate. Pollack dedicated his Fourth Phase of Water book to Gilbert Ling and mentions him a number of times, Mae Wan Ho has a number of chapters in her book that refer to Ling. There is strong support for Ling in the Laboratory of Cell Physiology, Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences as evidenced by the papers by Matveev. These are the cites that you deem not about this subject whereas the opposite is true.
Comments: Removal of a cite from 1936 with the comment "publications from 36 are clearly NOT discussing a claim first articlulated in 61". Did you read the full sentence which says "Initially Ling in 1965 based his polarized multilayer (PM) theory on the earlier theories of deBoer and Zwikker (1929) and Bradley (1936)
- Notability requires that third party reliable sources have discussed the topic of the article. The article contained no evidence that third parties had discussed the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)