User talk:Barney the barney barney

gracias for your post to David

"understand that WP:FRINGE should apply to this page"

We agree. It should. For scientific claims. As opposed to, say, claims like "Sheldrake has two kids", which is methinks absolutely *not* subject to WP:FRINGE restrictions.

  But does it apply to Sheldrake's brief time with Sufism, a topic which is not highly-respected in the top quintile of serious academic really scientific publications? Or instead, *just* to phytomorphology, quantum physics qua quantum physics, and similar scientific fields of inquiry? The reason that creation science is FRINGE, and that Theories of Muhammad in the Bible is not fringe, is because one is making scientific claims, whereas the other is making theological claims, and attempting to editorialize by dubbing the latter 'pseudoarchaeology' so as to delete otherwise-perfectly-Reliable-Sourced material and keep only *really* lowercase-reliable sources, does not fly.

  That is where we disagree methinks. WP:FRINGE does not apply to the man's religion, and WP:MEDRS does not apply to his Reliably-Sourced job title (contrast with lowercase-reliability which is totally unrelated). Anyhoo, methink you may have heard this before <grin> ... although these metaphors are new. Main point I dropped by to mention was, thanks for leaving David a nice note. He's very frustrated right now, as most everybody is. I wish arbcom had taken the case, instead of kicking the can down the road, but whatever. David was especially unhappy with TRPoD, and of course TRPoD is especially unhappy with *me* because they value concise edits so highly. But it was not TRPoD's fault that David left, they were just the straw to David's camel, and if you don't mind, please leave TRPoD a nice note in my stead. Or not, WP:REQUIRED applies as usual.  :-)   Thanks, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While, we're going rambling off topic, my opinion is that the religion articles should describe accepted objective scholarly work in this area, mainly by sociologists of science, and historians. No doubt that this will upset some people who hold religious beliefs not supported by evidence. Those who hold such beliefs tend to be remarkably ignorant about their providence (edit:) and remarkably certain of their correctness. However, this is a biography of a person who claims to be a scientist. I sense TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)'s frustration, which is entirely understandable when people repeatedly (a) won't listen (b) try to weasel out of policy. My point to David in DC (talk · contribs), is the vast uncrossable gulf between Sheldrake's fans, and the consensus formers, is actually his views are broadly within the consensus formers, and then Iantresman (talk · contribs) shouldn't be including them within the anti-WP:FRINGE, anti-Wikipedia editors. It's those anti-Wikipedia editors which cause so much frustration for good editors when the admins refuse to pull their fingers out of their collective arses and actually deal with it. The German Wikipedia approach needs considering. If we were on the German Wikipedia we wouldn't be having this conversation because in true Germanic tradition they shoot first and ask questions later, and kill the anti-Wikipedia editors before they have a chance to breed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the religion-thing (the FTN regulars are split 50/50 on the question... but most of wikipedia is against letting serious mainstream academic professional scientists wipe all on-wiki religion except for debunking-thereof). I of course disagree that enWiki should be deWiki, for obvious reasons, and am fighting as hard as I can to keep it from happening. WP:FLAGGED has gone from 0.01% to 0.02% of mainspace during 2013, and is accelerating, so I better hurry up. In general though, while I wish you would stop lashing out and calling everybody who annoys you "anti-wikipedia", I agree 100% with your assessment of the cause of the frustration. It is the sides. You are extremely good at sourcing, and that is mostly because of your passion for your side. Iantresman is also good at sourcing, for the same reason (passion for his side). WP:NICE is supposed to keep you two from frustration... but more importantly, NPOV is *supposed* to mean that you both have your say -- strictly via the WP:RS you can find -- in mainspace. WP:FRINGE is a huge win for the SkePOV: it allows elimination of Journal-of-Sasquatch-Believers.

  Trouble is, you and jps and the other FTN regulars are trying to push too damn far, and use WP:FRINGE as an excuse for deletion of the BBC, and psychologyToday, and so on. If allowed to stand, sooner or later all of wikipedia would be like that. "Jesus is a totally made-up fictional character, with miraculous powers, almost exactly like Obi Wan Kenobi." But long before that point ever came, http://wikipedia.org server-farm will have been taken offline. Gotta draw a line in the sand: medical & hard-science claims, only. This is not the right historical moment for the truimph of rationalism, and wikipedia has to reflect the shoddy state of affairs in the now, it cannot be the vehicle for driving-by-cudgel the world into a new age of enlightenment. WP:CGTW is something I just found today. But if that's not black enough, you should try Bishzilla's masterpiece, WP:OGTW, which seems written specially for little ol' moi. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, and find some off-wiki outlet for your frustrations dammit so you can keep improving it.  :-)   Sandstein is a redacted very strict yet discerning person, but they're usually correct... speaking of which, I have to go apologize over there, for posting my 1800 words screed at AE, which they promptly and correctly deleted... such are the trials of the wikiverse. Talk to you later. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You know what, 74. I can't fix Wikipedia all by myself. I am not a Biblical scholar, it simply isn't my area of expertise, and although I have some interest in it, and I suggest probably a better general knowledge and understanding than many Christians. Many of the Biblical scholars of course, if religious, are intelligent enough to have a philosophical-based belief system that doesn't prevent them from objective reasoning. However, for Wikipedia editing on this subject, I personally have no interest. Maybe I should get myself a copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible, but WP:YOUCANTDOITALLYOURSELF. What I have tried to do is to fix the Rupert Sheldrake article. It is but a small part of the big picture. If every diligent editor fixed a small part, then the Wikipedia world would be a better place. Yes, I am good at sourcing. It isn't rocket science though. You just need access to the right resources, hidden behind paywalls that can be got behind by using a library card, or phone a friend, and by being systematic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Monica Larner AfD

Well, at least it makes me feel a little better to know I wasn't the only one annoyed by the way it was closed. Warm regards. Msnicki (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sir Edward Riley

I don't see any reason to include "Sir" in the article title - and can't see anything in WP:NCPEER to justify it - so have moved him to the plain name. Did you have a particular reason? PamD 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is part of his name, it is not a title like "Dr" or "Mr" or "Professor". Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref yr recent msg: if it is a page with just one line, that was a mistake: I meant Show Preview, but Fat Fingers hit Save instead. Am engaged in writing article now, so delete one-line page as an error, so long as it doesn't compromise 'the real' entry that I'm still in the middle of doing, complete with refs., etc. Protozoon (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, re-read yr. msg.: Do not delete, as I am still actively writing. The save was premature & error: check back in 1 hour and review for me! Protozoon (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Not sure if you noticed, but your revert here was only three minutes over 24 hours, so it still counts as a 1RR violation. There is no basis for claiming an exemption there either, so you should self-revert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you should, I was just coming here to say the same thing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Anthony Buxton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DL, JP, DSO and Edward North Buxton

H.A. Barclay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to TD, DL, JP and CVO

Edward Ridley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PC, KC and Vanity Fair

Humphrey Barclay (reverend) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CVO and Padre

St Mary's Church, Downe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Unitarian and St Mary the Virgin

Carlos Blacker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FRCP

Frederic Carpenter Skey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Abernethy

James Allen Harker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FLS

Lizzie Allen Harker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lizzie Watson

Marlborough Pryor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Savant

Maurice Barclay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Barclay

Royal College of Surgeons of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Stanley

Sir Charles Tennyson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CMG

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Francis Hamilton Wedgwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Euston, DL and JP

Horace Roome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DL, CB and KCIE

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Anthony Kelly, Alan Baker and Neil Bartlett

Sir Robert Pigot, 7th Baronet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DL, CB and RM

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1972 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Bond and Victor Gold

Sir Edward Packe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DL and JP

Geoffrey Tindal-Carill-Worsley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CB

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1974 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jack Halpern

List of Masters of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gordon Cameron

Robert Pryor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samuel Hoare

Sir Arthur Huddleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CMG

Sir Robert Pigot, 6th Baronet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DSO

W.W. Grave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CMG

Walter Marlborough Pryor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Pryor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous

Considering your past comments to me, I consider your "Thank you" posts disingenuous. Please find a different way to amuse yourself. Tom Butler (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a year-end surge in unpleasantness? It's everywhere! But who knew that even saying thank you would make anyone angry enough to complain on your talk page. What's next? Say thanks again and get templated with a stop sign? What happens if you barnstar them? Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) you have to remember that Tom thinks differently to most of the rest of us. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney,the you are misusing the "Thank you" tool to harass me. Now you have followed the unwise advice of editors who have nothing to lose here and did it again. You have already established a pattern of this in the derisive tone you have used with me in the past. If it is your intention to continue to poke at me, I will have no choice but to as for help with your Harassment of me. Tom Butler (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom Butler (talk · contribs) - tell you what, ask for harassment and I'll raise you a topic ban on your favourite/only subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Go for the topic ban if you can. It will give me a good opportunity to seek protection from your childish behavior. Tom Butler (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree Tom Butler (talk · contribs) - if you're not being disruptive, and you seem to be valiantly self-restraining presently (albeit moaning while doing it), then I shouldn't really have any reason to talk to the best qualified (BEng no less and don't forget to question the credentials of others), most important aetherologist in the world (self-appointed). Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to reset this before we waste more time. Every time you use the "Thank you" tool, I have to go and try to figure out why. After a while, it is just irritating. At the same time, I understand you think I am on the wrong side of issues, and evidently that you can neutralize me by exposing my potential conflict of interest. You already know what I think of your side, so perhaps we are even.

Let me propose a truce by offering you a year membership in the association I co-direct. We publish a quarterly NewsJournal that you may find entertaining, at least. My idea is that you will learn a little about a different perspective at no risk to you, and at the same time, see that I am just a reporter.

If you are interested, either send me an email or contact me via our contact page. All I need is an email address, as the NewsJournal will come to you via PDF file. Tom Butler (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Walter Long

I see you made [edit] regarding his life span. Do you have a source, so i (or you) can add it into the article? Thanks.Ujkrieger (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1858, St. George Hanover Square, London seems to be the overwhelming favourite. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)