User talk:Alfonzo Green

Welcome!

Hello, Alfonzo Green, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shot info (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

It's not enough to just say "Problem A is common failing of some people (really solid reference), and Shermer has that failing (no reference whatsoever)". Yes, the thrust of the argument is true of science in general, but if there isn't any reliable source that says the criticism applies specifically to Shermer, then it doesn't belong on the Shermer article, it belongs in a general science article. --Underpants (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also not enough to say "here's a bunch of separate facts, which, taken together, should be obvious to anyone that X is true". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas, period. If there are reliable sources out there that directly support the final thesis, then great, please add them.

If I or other readers may likely be missing something important among the hour+ of references you've added, feel free to point it out... more specific references are always helpful to the reader. --Underpants (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page before attempting to add it back against objections such as above. This is the third time you've added it, so please be careful. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia takes its policies very seriously when it comes to biographies of living persons. If you can find reliable sources for the statements that were added, then it may be able to be kept. Note: It's not sufficient to merely add references for the least controversial sentences... rather, the most controversial statements are those that need the best references for them, otherwise it will be considered an unpublished synthesis of published material, and will removed. --Underpants (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Rupert Sheldrake. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Rupert Sheldrake, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am doing my best to introduce accurate information into the Sheldrake article. You are doing your best to sabotage my efforts and introduce misinformation.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR! The WP:SYNTH section of it makes very clear that it is not permissible to infer conclusions that the sources themselves do not make. If you want the article to contain material on whether Gardner's comments were accurate or not, you need to find a source that discusses his comments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rupert Sheldrake. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 10:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comment on my user page, not my talk page, you seem to not understand the WP:3RR. I suggest you read the linked policy. Reverts after "justification" are still reverts, and count to the total. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reported your multiple reverts to WP:AN3. You were given ample chance to discuss you edits, but continuing to revert after the above warnings (and you warning others), and the post on my talk page, went to far for my liking. Please read some of our WP:POLICIES and perhaps look at the WP:TUTORIAL. Verbal chat 11:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Rupert Sheldrake. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Holes you could drive a truck through

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for participating in the Wikipedia (WP) process. Before you judge the bureaucracy to harshly I'll offer that it serves a purpose. You clearly have respect for science so you are probably familiar with the peer review process. I don't know if you have participated in the peer review process but if you have you are aware that rejection and highly critical reviews are par for the course. Wikipedia's bureaucratic check and balances are similar peer review so don't be disheartened by your first attempts. The second thing you need to understand is that WP concept of NPOV is not a pure objective truth. NPOV is a verifiable mainstream understanding of a subject. You must realize that Sheldrake is not part of the mainstream science, its even reasonable to argue that he isn't even a part of the fringe of science but has gone his own way. The article is written in a way that attempts to treat Sheldrake fairly from a WP defined NPOV.

You asked on the Sheldrake talk page why Simonm223 considered Sheldrake's ideas pseudoscientific. Let me offer you a quick explanation. Mainstream morphogenesis investigates developmental biology with the assumption that chemical reactions, physical interactions, and their interplay are paramount in understanding developmental biology. For example I've seen a presentation showing the importance that the shear force of blood has on the structural development of a zebra fish hearts, really remarkable work done with the creation of a remarkable camera and creative experimental design. The work shows that it takes more than just a simple minded understanding of genetics to explains the development of biological systems, interactions with the proper physical environment are paramount. That is the mainstream. Sheldrake starts his work by claiming that the known and measurable biology, chemistry, and physics are currently insufficient to explain observed biological development. This is where it gets sketchy with degrees of belief. All good scientists understand that the ideas they work with are models, at any given moment the current model will always be insufficient. Where Sheldrake differs is that he believes existing biology, chemistry, and physics even with on going modifications will never explain developmental biology. These model lack what he calls the a morphic field, an unmeasurable force (or matter) he invokes to explain biological development among other things. So while mainstream biological development toils away to explain phenomenon with known biology, chemistry, and physics Sheldrake invokes his morphic field. There is a stark contrast in the sophistication of the arguments. The mainstream must refer to main complex and confusing biological characteristic that relate to genetics, epigenetics, cell signaling, protein expression, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, reduction potentials, chemical bonding, and so forth. Sheldrake describes his morphic field and its relation to phenomenon with simplistic metaphors, for example his photography analogy, that require no great depth of knowledge to understand. Most scientists see this as abandoning a complex problem by applying a simple "magical" concept which needn't explain the wealth of known and documented phenomenon. Which brings us to a more important test: results. Applying concepts derived from the mainstream understanding developmental biology allows researchers to achieve remarkable control of nature with nothing comparable emerging from Sheldrake's work.

I hope that helps.--OMCV (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and for taking the trouble to offer your thoughts. You may not realize that I'm a scholar of science and am well aware of the points you make. I realize that developmental biology is far more than just simple-minded genetics. This is especially true with the recognition that the way genes are regulated is paramount in development. That Sheldrake denies the ability of current mainstream models to account for development in no way renders his work pseudo-science. What it means is that his proposal is radical and, if true, will require radical revision in current biological models. Such shifts in perspective are not uncommon in the history of science.

That researchers have identified chemical and physical processes necessary for development does not mean these processes are sufficient. Sheldrake merely recognizes that necessity, from a strictly logical point of view, does not equate to sufficiency. He does not deny the effects of physics and chemistry on organisms but simply asserts that these effects are insufficient, by themselves, to explain development.

Morphic fields are derived from the traditional concept of morphogenetic fields. There are three approaches to these fields. Waddington viewed them as conceptual placeholders to be superseded once sufficient knowledge was attained of the underlying physics and chemistry. Brian Goodwin asserts that these fields are expressions of timeless Platonic biological forms. Sheldrake believes that these fields, through their inherent memory, are structured by past similar fields and therefore evolve along with the structures they regulate. All of these views are legitimate speculations as to the nature of these fields.

Sheldrake has repeatedly emphasized that these fields are not material-energetic but are nonetheless measurable through their effects on development and other biological processes. That is, where a given process ought to be random but instead follows the course of previous similar systems, the field effect is verified.

Most biologists are confused about the nature of scientific theory. To say, for instance, that the motion of an object can be explained according to the principle of inertia is not to invoke a magical concept. So too, the concepts of gravitation and electrogmagnetism are not magical concepts, though they reduce a great deal of complexity to a startingly simple explanation. As the esteemed physicist Walter Elsasser pointed out, developmental biology cannot be considered fully scientific until it develops a general theory, along the lines of the primary theories of physics, to account for morphogenesis. Elsasser suggested a concept he called "holistic memory" to explain morphogenesis, a concept which is very near to Sheldrake's morphic resonance.

The whole point of morphic resanance is that it offers an explanation of "the wealth of known and documented phenomena," some of which he documented himself during his years as a researcher at Cambridge.

Finally, Sheldrake is devoted to the understanding of nature, not its control. That these goals are routinely conflated is one of the main obstacles to scientific knowledge.

Thanks again for your comments. I hope you'll see that my defense of Sheldrake is reasonable.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you see that most everyone involved with modern research concerning biological developmental consider Sheldrake's ideas a huge cop out. Instead of doing detailed work he claims there are "fields" and the "fields" take care of the details in a way we can't understand so there is no point in trying to understand the details. It is the active decision to not investigate the details that scientists find so offensive. If emergent phenomenon can be explained through a known (or nearly known) force, reactivity, or material relationship there is no need to invoke a phenomenon that lies outside of all known modern science. Have you heard his theory of vision, its just bizarre and contrary to known physics and biology.

I think its ambitious at best to claiming that most biologists are confused about scientific theory. Most writing regarding scientific theory is derived from a physics perspective. In physics there is a very limited number of empirical observations and theories reduce to very simple relationships. Take a step to chemistry (where I study) and there is many more empirical observations to consider and there is certainly no general theory of chemistry. In fact chemist and material's scientists regularly create material's that don't exist (to the best of our knowledge) outside anthropogenic conditions (physicists have created a few things but orders of magnitudes less). Synthesis of new materials is well outside theories of science derived from our understanding of physics. To makes the world fit these theories synthetic activities may one day be considered simply molecular engineering similar to electrical engineering but I think that's a bit close minded. In any case if we move on from chemistry to biology things are even more complex and we even hit evolution, something that does not emerge form studying physics or chemistry. Applying expectations and goals derived form physics to biology is foolish at best, we must follow the empirical evidence even if there is so much of data its hard to evaluate. We just need to be creative when attacking the data parcing it for a deeper understanding. I betray my favor for experimentalists over theorists with what I've said but I guess I've got more respect for folks who work for a living. As for understanding nature versus controlling nature; I understand they thrill of understanding, creation, and discovery as much of the next person but as long as I'm working on tax payers money I feel obliged to better the human condition. Its unlikely that I will convince you of anything but...--OMCV (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comments. We are certainly in agreement that chemistry is irreducible to physics. By pointing out that physics is the most solid, theory-based branch of the sciences, I did not mean to imply that the theories of physics negate genuinely emergent phenomena, beginning at the chemical level. Like Sheldrake, I believe that organisms are emergent, that is, irreducible to the molecules that comprise them.

Sheldrake does not deny that we should understand the molecular details of morphogenesis. He simply says that molecular processes are insufficient (though obviously necessary) for development. Like Elsasser, Sheldrake sees biological inheritance as a two track process, one genetic and the other irreducible.

The same applies to vision. We need occipital processing, to be sure, but this processing is insufficient, by itself, to explain vision. In other words, the occipital lobe facilitates vision rather than containing it, enabling us to see what's around us rather than recreating the world in a neural representation of it. To me, what's bizarre is the idea that we are homunculi watching a kind of neural television in the backs of our heads.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There's the problem. You consider it a two track process, one track emergence and the other reducibility. You must like Descartes. My perspective is that we reduce material to the lowest level that is convenient to work with. At no point does phenomenon bifurcate its just a matter of convenient resolutions. If something is currently irreducible its outside the scope of science. That doesn't necessarily mean the irreducible subject matter will always be outside the scope but as long as it can't be qualified or quantified it is beyond science.

This two track issue carries over to the vision problem. Science is built on a deterministic materialistic philosophy for better or worse. I don't see any room for debate on this since its a definition. This is a problem since Sheldrake is again offering some sort of dualist perspective/explanation for vision which by definition can't be science. No one has ever claimed that vision can be "contained", vision is a process not an object. Sadly I think the "homunculi watching a ... television" is also a straw man, the concept of a homunculi as you've used it here doesn't have a place in modern science.

Now I'll take a step back. You are right to be confused since most social science avoid the mind-body problem in their work while most popular social science embraces it head on, introducing many often conflicting dualist perspective. These dualisms (or duali) have been reinforced by some physicists with their supporter of various quantum mysticisms. Despite all this, the proper solution for the mind-body problem when practicing a proper physical science is everything is matter and energy (or in other words its all "body") even quantum mechanics.

A related question: what do you think happens when an AI employee's a camera to acquire information about its surroundings? How does that differ from human vision?--OMCV (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Cartesian dualism. My thinking follows along the lines of Bohr's concept of complementarity, according to which an electron is a particle from the point of view of position and time, but it's a wave from the point of view of momentum and energy.

Bohr regarded complementarity as a general principle of nature. In the case of mind and brain, there's really just one entity, but it can be viewed either of two ways, as a spatial object (brain) or a center of representations (mind). The mistake of neuroscience is to try to squeeze representations into the brain, which merely facilitates representation rather than containing it. The brain is a material object, and no object can represent anything beyond itself. This is the principle of identity, commonly expressed as A = A. By contrast, the principle of representation is A = B. By placing representation in the brain, neural reductionism violates the identity principle and renders the brain into a mystical object.

An organism can also be viewed in two ways, either in terms of its molecular constituents or as an integrated whole. We can approach biological inheritance as either genetic-epigentic transmission or resonance with similar, previous forms. Reductionism and holism are not opponents but only alternate perspectives, much like particle and wave.

Science is a method, not a belief. Deterministic materialism is in no way part of science but merely provides researchers with a framework for thought and investigation. That it has proved extremely useful does not mean it's necessarily true. In many ways, this framework is now obstructing further scientific advance.

Though irreducible, self organized complex systems fall under the purview of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, a field of science pioneered by Ilya Prigogine, who won a Nobel prize for his work in 1977. I suggest Prigogine's The End of Certainty for an introduction to the science of nondeterministic, irreducible systems.

You ask what happens when an AI aims its camera. I'm not sure artificial intelligence is possible. I can say, however, that when an ordinary computer is hooked up to a camera, no one sees the image unless a person views the image on a monitor attached to the computer. And if occipital neurons are indeed generating a picture of the world as it exists in front of the eyes, then this picture too would be unseen unless a homunculus resided within the occipital lobe.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we have definitely gone beyond common ground I don't think anyone researching computer science disputes the existence of artificial intelligence its not science fiction but a very a practical field of study. Computers might not have the same intelligence as humans, but neither do ants. Its true that science is a process, method, and often a trade but its also has culture, values, and philosophy. The method is premised on the assumption that if something happens once given set of measurable (material) conditions it will happen statically predictable number of times given the same conditions any place in reality, in other words deterministic materialism. Prigogine ideas deal mostly with the transition from "knowable determinism" to "unknowable determinism". Just because an observer doesn't and can't known a future event doesn't mean that future event is indeterminate. I have heard the particle is to wave as brain is to mind sillygism before and what shocks me is that the particle and wave are the same thing and very well defined; form a "materialistic" perspective a wave is no less material than a particle. As far the brain "containing" "representation", I think most scientists believe that thoughts, including thought that involves representation, are processes not objects which could be "contained". I totally agree a brain can not represent anything beyond itself. A representative thought does not violate the capacity of a brain or the identity principle since the representative thought is not what the thought represents. The thought is rough, very very rough approximation of reality. Any time you investigate any object, process, or any other aspect of reality you must realize that more details emerges every time you inspect more closely or even when you step back or study form a different angle or inspect with a different method; add to this a world in which every object is constantly changing (including the observer). An observer's representative thoughts of an object, process, ect. are always a gross approximation.--OMCV (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If Sheldrake is right, then in the case of organic phenomena, science will have to abandon the assumption that every repetition of an experiment under the same conditions will give the same results. If science can't adapt to conditions and evolve, then it's as unworthy as dogmatic religion in describing reality.

Prigigone is very clear that the outcome of a bifurcation point - - at which a growing complex system either collapses altogether or evolves to a higher level of organization - - does not follow from any deterministic law. Of course, we can always say, after the fact, that a particular event had to occur a particular way, but this does not demonstrate that the event in question was determined in advance. Universal determinism is a matter of faith, not reason or evidence.

That thought is a process has no bearing on the question of whether or not it's materialized in the brain. That representation is rough rather than exact doesn't change the fact that material objects (or processes) cannot represent. That is, they cannot point to something outside themselves. Material-energetic processes can only be themselves. No representation allowed. For that we must turn to mind, and to avoid dualism, we must turn to complementarity.

By the way, thanks for your help editing the Sheldrake-Wolpert wager. This is what editors are supposed to do, help with the process, not censor the page and all links to it.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Biology is very very different from physics and the practice of biology has always accepted a lesser ability to control variables and more anomalies. Still the only experiments that are useful for gaining scientific type knowledge from are experiments that yield reproducible results. You say that if science can't adapt (I assume its philosophy) than its unworthy of respect in essence. I think you have a very good point, science is a valuable method of thinking but its also very limited. It can ask and answer questions only when the subject, verb, and and adjectives can be measured reasonably. If the philosophy of science becomes something different than it should be named something differently so the difference is clear. Reason and evidence can't ultimately be predicated on reason or evidence. Reason and logic contain inherent inconsistencies and evidence always include assumptions. The words "assumption" and "faith" mean essentially the same thing in my mind but many people are very touchy about their use. I think anyone trained in science would agree determinism is an assumption of science (unless they dogmatically believe determinism is true). By this reasoning scientists have faith in determinism in so much as it involves their work. I wish I could comment more exactly on "bifurcation point" but I'm not familiar with term or the subject and I'm very comfortable with state that "unknown determinism" or "statical determinism" are the dominant philosophies in science even if Prigigone took some form of a minority view as science abandoned "knowable determinism". I don't see how you can say that "material objects (or processes) cannot represent" what do you call a map (written or mental) or a sentence? Why can't material-energetic processes be used to represent other material-energetic as long as the representation is (much) simpler than its subject? What is the difference between dualism and complementarit?

From a physical standpong, a map is a set of molecules arranged in a certain way such that when you look at it, you interpret it to refer to something else. The reference or representation exists only in your interpretation. It doesn't literally exist in the molecules themselves. You can examine the molecules all you want, but you will find only physical properties, not the property we call "representation."

Dualism means two. Complementarity means two views on one thing.

Despite my willingness to help you get your pet page up to the highest standard possible all the comment you are receiving from editors are valid. They are not pushing POV the wager is not ready for an encyclopedia even if it is ready for Boing Boing. I plan to revert the page every other day (at least) until administration deals with the matter. Based on my experience you position is not going to fair well in when arbitration does occur. You would be much better off dropping your efforts on the "wager" for the moment find something else on Wikipedia to work on. This would also give you an opportunity to learn policy and form. That's my take on the situation.--OMCV (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fare enough.  :-)

Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think interpretation is something non-material while I understand it to be similar to what happens in a difference engine or Turing machine only far more complex. Such systems not only represent material with materials they process that material with materials in a way thats not much different than "interpretative" thought. I'm sorry I brought this back to AI since you don't believe in AI. I guess the fundamental problem is that I think everything works through a material process including biology (including representative thought). I won't ever be able to prove this to you its an assumption I make. If you think thought is more than material there is no way that I can argue but I wonder why you think we have such marvelous brains that chew through so much of our glucose. It seems that your rationalization gets complex while mine stay simple. There are a bunch more questions I could as but there isn't much point. Its been nice chatting.--OMCV (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose that "thought is more than material." Rather, thought and neurotransmission are complementary views onto a single process. It's matter from one point of view and thought from the other point of view. No different than a coin that's "heads" from one point of view and "tails" from the other. I wouldn't say that "heads" is "more than tails." Nor would I say that the difference in viewpoint makes two coins out of one.

Computers do not exhibit any such complementarity. They are exactly what they appear to be: manufactured objects whose forms are externally stamped onto them. As a self-organized system, the brain is shaped both externally and from within. The only way to make an intelligent computer is to take advantage of the natural propensity for self-organization, to somehow induce the computer into organizing its own circuitry, much as a chemical compound can be prodded into crystallizing a certain way. We don't actually manufacture crystals but merely provide the conditions under which they generate spontaneously. But if we could do the same with a computer, it would no longer be purely artificial. It would have evolved into a new kind of natural system. The paradox of AI is that by the time we reach it, it's not artificial anymore.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Genome Wager

A tag has been placed on The Genome Wager requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Frmatt (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further info: It's an interesting piece of trivia, but is relatively unremarkable and could easily be added to the article of one of the other people. Frmatt (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again...I've tagged it with some areas for improvement. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt about its importance (I'm not all that closely in touch with scientific academia), but it definitely needs some work to bring it up to WP standards. I won't re-nominate it for deletion at this point, but will leave it open for conversation here. Please try to fix some of the items I've tagged it with, and more third-party references (from neither of the subjects in the wager) would help to prevent this from being deleted. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Following the instant reversion by Verbal of my attempt to re-instate the Sheldrake-Wolpert wager, I - like you - have reluctantly decided enough is enough, and will no longer contribute to Wikipedia. Robma (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your posts to editors talk pages

Please see WP:NOTVAND and WP:CIVIL, and justify your edits on the talk page. You should also be aware of WP:CANVASS. Multiple requests such as this, especially containing personal attacks (WP:NPA), are frowned upon. Verbal chat 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you stopped vandalizing my Genome Wager page, I wouldn't have to seek the assistance of unbiased editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND for why you are incorrect in calling my edits vandalism, and see WP:OWN for why it isn't your article. Verbal chat 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're repeatedly blanking the page without giving adequate explanation. On the talk page you have merely cited WP regulations, not explaining why they apply in this case, and in your last edit, the two justifications you make for deletion - - lack of reliable sources and lack of notablility - - are iffy at best, clearly requiring further discussion. You may not be familiar with New Scientist, but it's about as reliable as it gets in the popular scientific press, basically the Scientific American of the UK. The wager is between two prominent biologists, which is why it was covered in New Scientist. As per WP:Note multiple sources are generally preferred, but this is not necessarily required and is particularly wrongheaded in this case, as the wager was just announced, and there hasn't been enough time for coverage to develop beyond the blogosphere (where the wager has been mentioned at numerous sites). And if you're so worried about notability, why don't you just put a notability tag on it? Give it some time. Let some other editors have a look at it, so a consensus can build. To cut off that process by repeatedly blanking the page is vandalism, pure and simple. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a British scientist, and I know how unreliable New Scientist is, thanks. I'm afraid the WP:BURDEN is on you. I suggested you work on it in your user space, which is a good idea. Would you like me to move it to User:Alfonzo_Green/Sheldrake-Wolpert wager (which is a better title imo). "Your" article was also written in a non-encyclopaedic style, which you'll have to fix before replacing it. Note it hasn't been deleted, and redirects are not vandalism. Calling them such will, even if you think they meet the common definition, will not be looked on favourably by other wikipedia editors. You need to address several issues: 1, The style of the piece isn't fully appropriate - it is written in a more journalistic style. This shouldn't be hard to fix. 2, At the moment you only have one RS, but it isn't independent - it was written by the two agents of the bet. To meet WP:GNG you will need to show multiple, independent, WP:RS with significant coverage of the wager. 3, If it is a recent event and there is a paucity of sources, then wikinews is the appropriate place. Bring it to wikipedia when the WP:GNG has been met. Lastly, out of interest, two questions, but please ignore if you like: Are you a scientist, and in which field? Thanks, Verbal chat 08:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please consider your actions on Scientific wager and Rupert Sheldrake and avoid Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. On Scientific wager the material you have added has been removed by User:Verbal, User:2over0, and twice by myself. User talk:Old Moonraker kept the material only because he did not see a discussion explaining its removal. You have re-added the material three times without forming a consensus. You must have other less controversial interests please try editing some of those. For example, you've done some very good and balanced work on genetic determinism.--OMCV (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Chreode with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. mauchoeagle _(c) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Chreode -> Creode

Hi there. Just wanted to suggest you have a quick browse of WP:MOVE before moving more pages. You should always use the 'move' button at the top of the page instead of copying and pasting, as this will preserve the edit history of the page. Thanks! Mato (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop inserting your personal analysis about what was important about the new edition of the book [1]. Please provide a third party source that identifies what makes that edition special. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

edti warring and 3RR

Please don't edit war. WP:EDITWAR

Also, beware of WP:3RR. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been previously blocked for editwarring on this very same page, you do not seem to have learned much. You made a bold edit. It has been REVERTED (multiple times). You must now DISCUSS and get the editors invovled to reach a consensus BEFORE the content is added. Please revert yourself if you do not want to be blocked again for edit warring. It would be a shame for you to have such a short life after coming back out of the woodwork. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition [2] removal of other people's comments on talk pages without valid reason is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

you have [3] clearly crossed the bright line of edit warring for which you will be blocked even if you continue to contend "but no one provided a reason" (although they did, and they said so on the article talk page, and you removed their note on the article talk page informing you that they have provided a reason.) You do need to revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits at Rupert Sheldrake has been filed

Please see WP:AN3#User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: ). An editor states that you have been edit warring on this article. At first sight it appears you have made five reverts in 24 hours, which breaks the WP:Three revert rule. You can respond in the thread if you wish. Normally, violation of the WP:3RR rule calls for a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rupert Sheldrake. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: 31 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alfonzo Green (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus." This is precisely what I attempted to do. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see how it is implied that if you don't actually find consensus, you should simply keep reverting to your preferred text. When your block expires, please continue the discussion and resolve it before editing the article. Kuru (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would suggest that you withdraw your request, read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then follow the guidelines to submit a request that addresses the concerns as stated in the guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are up against people who do not seem to want consensus. Attempts to achieve it are ignored, ridiculed, reverted, responded to by "reporting" somewhere, etc. Don't give up. Lou Sander (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately this pattern of behaviour (i.e. not understanding and being willing to implement policy, and being rather angry when others do) is continuing, and you are reminder of the WP:ARB/PS sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have submitted another report. You know what the score is by now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

request to de-noticeboard-ify

Hello Alfonzo, I left you a note over here.[4] I realize that things are going slow as molasses, but the article is a very contentious one, so I don't see any way around it. WP:DEADLINE applies here... Wiseman finally admitted this stuff in 2007, the experiments were back in 1995, and currently it is 2013. Wikipedia is for the ages, so I'd like the mainspace article to be correct, but December is soon enough for me. It's already been six years, what's another week?

Along those lines... Would you consider withdrawing your noticeboard dispute, please, and see if we can get the stuff worked out? You can always re-open it later; just put it inside collapse-tags (as opposed to hab-tags) and note that you are suspending temporarily while talkpage discussions continue, or something like that. I do realize that Barney immediately took *his* problems to noticeboard, so you aren't the one that started this ball rolling, but that does not mean you cannot be the one to *stop* the ball rolling, if you know what I mean. HTH, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

getting the wording right for the Wiseman addendum

Hello, you and I almost seem to be on the same page... but I think you're worried that only the 2007 source supports "patterns match" ... whereas I think 1999or2000 source is *also* good enough for that quote.

"Nowhere in that [1999or2000] paper (which is already cited in the article) did Wiseman fess up to the fact that he actually did replicate Sheldrake's data, instead merely noting that Sheldrake claimed to have 'found the same pattern.' Only in the [2007] interview does he [Wiseman] admit to the embarrassing truth." --Alfonzo

Errr... incorrect, from what I can see. Wiseman admits in the 1999-reply-paper that the pattern is the same. It was a bit oblique, but still quite clearly there.

comparison of the 1999 quotes from Wiseman's reply-paper, with the 2007 quotes from Wiseman's skeptico-interview

I think the reason he does not say that he outright-replicated Sheldrake's result, is because Wiseman's four trials followed a different experimental protocol (albeit only very slightly to my eyes), and relied on a different definition of what counted as a "trigger" for Jaytee. Replication usually refers to exact replication, and I don't think Wiseman admits to that in 2007, any differently than he admitted to it in 1999or2000. You quote Wiseman from 2007 like this: "...the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s ...It’s how it’s interpreted..." Which to me, sounds no different than the 1999 stuff, where Wiseman said this: "...[Sheldrake]... found the same pattern in our first three experiments. We do not believe that... provides compelling evidence... [because] observed patterns could easily arise if [methodological concerns]...." You don't think that The Same Pattern, which is in the vzaak link and thus uncontestably a reliable source, is good enough to restore NPOV? (For that subtopic at least.) Both quotes above are saying that the patterns matched. Both quotes are also saying, that despite this pattern-match, Wiseman still refuses to give an inch: he sticks to his original conclusion, that there is no compelling evidence for Jaytee being psychic. He just changed reasons, from my-four-trials-entirely-refute-Sheldrake, to instead, methodological-concerns-make-Sheldrake's-results-not-good-enough-for-me. But we can let readers see that the patterns matched, and that Wiseman changed the reasons behind his conclusion, without needing the 2007 interview at all. Wiseman admits the patterns matched in the 1999 paper, by *failing* to say he disagreed the patterns matched! Wiseman disagreed with Sheldrake about everything *else* in the 1999 paper, but not the patterns. Which of course, is further backed up as being the truth, by the 2007 interview, where Wiseman explicitly confirms he agrees the patterns match.

p.s. As for the other stuff... I'm definitely in agreement with TRPoD that (given what we know of Wiseman... and from his other contextual quotes) there is only one way to interpret the quotes below.

the quotes from Wiseman where pronouns are easily misinterpreted to mean something which Wiseman does not actually think

quotes with incorrect connotations being put into Wiseman's mouth quotes interpreted by 74 so as to be in terms of what Wiseman actually meant-slash-thinks dog "was [telepathically] picking up something" dog "was picking up [non-telepathic signals] something [from the grandparents which spoiled the test]" "there may well be something [telepathic] going on." "there may well be something [methodologically-screwed-up] going on [which spoiled the tests]." "'more experiments needed' box [because telepathy seems plausible to me now]" "'more experiments needed' box [before I will ever be the slightest bit convinced telepathy is not crap]" "under slightly more rigorous conditions [so others besides me will also believe in telepathy]" "under slightly more rigorous conditions [unlike trials so far which were all crap]" Wiseman really only means the stuff on the *righthand* side, when he said these barequotes. But many people, seeing the barequotes in the article, would interpret Wiseman as implying the *lefthand* side of the table, the telepathy-is-real interpretations. That possibility, of readers mis-interpreting the barequotes, is why Barney is so worried. And I agree. Which is why pretty much none of the barequotes in the table can go into the article... they make Wiseman sound like he is not firmly 100% convinced that telepathy is totally bogus.

But the paper & interview both show, Wiseman is convinced that telepathy is bogus, and the patterns matching did *not* change his mind, about the conclusion there-is-no-evidence-whatsoever-for-telepathy. The only thing that changed is Wiseman's *reason* for that conclusion -- at first it was, I've refuted Sheldrake, but in 1999 and again in 2007, it became possible methodological flaws mean we must assume all existing experiments tell us *nothing* at all. If you want a quote from Wiseman saying that more experiments are needed, then the best one is from the vzaak link, where Wiseman says that he "reserves judgment" on whether Sheldrake's experiments were valid, pending publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. HTH. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

74.192.84.101, I appreciate your attempt to mediate my dispute. Unfortunately, certain editors are actively seeking to sabotage neutrality on the Sheldrake page. They seem to feel threatened by his work, perhaps because it calls into question deeply held materialist assumptions. Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we must continue with that assumption regarding editors who've made their agenda all too clear. My last edit was based on Wiseman's own words and in no way misrepresented his views. It was reverted by an editor who doesn't want Wikipedia readers to know that Wiseman's refutation of Sheldrake was bogus. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to argue with you.  :-)   But WP:IMAGINE applies here. I really, truly think they are not trying to sabotage neutrality... they believe they are upholding neutrality in fact... because they just don't fully grok how wikipedia NPOV works, which is to say, that it relies *entirely* upon sources, and that their own personal logic, their own analysis, their own judgment of the validity of Sheldrake's PhD or Sheldrake's philosophy or Sheldrake's research ... well, to put it flatly, their own stances are irrelevant. Wikipedia *has* to reflect what the sources say, and we cannot pick winners and losers.

  Anyhoo, wikipedia asks us to AGF, and I'll ask you to continue as well. The folks controlling mainspace believe they are improving wikipedia; their policy-misinterpretation is deep, and reasonably subtle. You've been around for many years, but think back to when you first started. Anyways, sooner or later we'll get the Wiseman sentence in. I hope sooner, of course, but don't really *expect* sooner anymore. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

no, we fully grok how NPOV works. what we dont grok is how people cannot grok WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience sanctions notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake. Thank you. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but our patience is exhausted. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)