User talk:Edhubbard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In the "Demonstrating the Reality of Synesthesia" section of the "Synesthesia" article, a cite is given to "Beeli et al., 2006".

Is that the following?

Beeli, Gian, Michaela Esslen, and Lutz Jäncke. 2005. "When coloured sounds taste sweet." Nature; vol. 434; 3 March: 38.

Or is there another, later Beeli et al. I have overlooked?

--Sean A. Day 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Sean. Thanks for the correction. Edhubbard 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


The cortical basis of synthesia[edit]

You seem like someone with a good understanding of the visual cortex's role in cognition. As someone without funding for university, I have relatively little formal education. But I need an expert's opinion on my hypothesis of the role of an altered layer V-basal axis in the genesis of schizophrenia. From my learning, I believe that the ventral visual stream is altered in such patients to ultimately change the entorhinal cortex's function, eventually producing an isolated, parallel network, with the dorsal stream. I believe this is due to the immense network of corticocortical efferents between the medial temporal lobe, an adaptation to allow for meaning to be associated with formants. I know, anecdotally, that our visual cortexies have an immense signal processing power. They can analyze the spectrum of base auditory input and coalesce it into visual stimuli, given enough 5-HTergic pyramidial cortical input to the thalamus.

The role of NMDA receptors is crucial, of course, for these FFT producing networks to arise. Within the ventral visual stream, a reducing fractal network exists, which produces depth perception given the different bilateral input. Deficits in these NMDAergic networks are what causes psychosis: Mk-801 is the predominant ligand used for animal research in this field. My question to you, is could you refer me to any studies/books regarding voltage gated ion channels/plasticity in the visual cortex? Google scholar's great for specific stuff, but this is kinda an open ended question. Really just any resources on anything, about the (mesoscopic) synaptic structures and NT cascades, regarding aberrant experiences would be greatly appreciated. I'm not entirely sure if this is appropriate for a talk page, but if you could be so kind and help me in my quest to understand, I would be eternally grateful. Guywholikesca2+ (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edward M. Hubbard[edit]

Hello! Edward M. Hubbard is not the appropriate spot to post information about yourself, because that's the encyclopedic part of the Wikipedia website. User:Edhubbard, however, is all yours to use more or less as you wish. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information. -- Merope 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm familiar with all three! I did a project two years ago that focused largely on a discourse between the two. I have most of what i need, thanks, i just need to get around to it. I have a lot of wikipedia projects that i've been sitting on but just haven't gotten around too. Thanks for reminding about the synesthesia page, and i'll check out your cleanups as soon as i finish writing this. Shaggorama 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm fairly familiar with your work as well! The papers you wrote with Ramachandran have been a pleasure and a great resource. I'm actually fairly honored to have been contacted by you, and i might get on those edits a little faster just on virtue of my gratitude for your research. Keep up the good work!

Thanks. I think that's one of the cool things about wikipedia; that people come here because they care about gaining and sharing knowledge. With the amount of stuff out there, we're all experts on something, and we can share and learn from each other. Edhubbard 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pharrell Williams[edit]

Ed, the problem with Pharrell Williams is the question of whether his statement alone, in that one interview, should be deemed sufficient to declare that he has synesthesia. The thing is, we want solid material that we can refer people to. While this interview clip does exist, and stands better than a private interview or such, I don’t think that it, in itself, is sufficient. I mean, it sounds very good, and like Pharrell is very possibly a synesthete, or at least a fair bet. But I just feel we need something more solid. Granted that there are others who have been put on the list with just about as scant of information or support, but at least, with those, there are hard-copy references which have been considered by more than just a few experts and which others may be referred to for continued debate.

The problem, as you are aware, is that there are some people – or at least one or two solid fans – who keep wanting to see Pharrell’s name in the list.

Now, what I would like to do would be to interview Pharrell and, somehow, lead him to producing something more solid which could be referenced. However, as you might guess, getting hold of Pharrell Williams in nigh impossible. Still, I will pursue the matter a ways further and see what might be done.

Meanwhile, although I saw your initial response re Pharrell Williams before, I am curious as to what your stance might be now. Do you think the video clip previous provided via the link is sufficient to use as citable reference? I guess I just want something more; including something more solid straight from Pharrell Williams himself.

Incidentally, I'm quite okay with keeping Pharrell on the "being reviewed" list.

--Sean A. Day 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean, I'm in 100% agreement with you. I think that you're exactly right, both that the quote is suggestive, and that it, in and of itself, it doesn't quite reach threshold. I agree that the ABC clip, by itself, is citable as definitive. If we have some other corroborating source (is there a Pharrell Williams fan page we can search through?) then the ABC quote is nice because it is publicly available.
So far, we have had just a couple of people (always IPs, instead of named users) and they seem to not persist when I revert. I think it's good that we have a documented conversation on this, so that people know that this is something we are working on, and that we have a procedure in place for looking into new additions. However, in the event that we get someeone that persists, we will want to be prepared to both argue for our procedure, and to say that we are doing everything we can to make some progress on this. It sounds like you are doing everything that any reasonable Pharrell Williams fan could ask.
On a related note, one thing that I was thinking about the other day, is, for new suggestions, what constitutes famous? For someone to be a "famous synesthete" we need to be able to agree that they are both famous and a synesthete. One suggestion that seems reasonable to me is that we consider anyone who has a wikipedia entry famous enough for our wikipedia list. What do you think? (ps: I'll copy this to your talk page, too) Edhubbard 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Re 'famous', I'll go with your premise here. My guess is that we are not too likely to too often run across someone whom we could otherwise substantiate as 'famous' who doesn't also have a Wiki article, or who doesn't deserve one to be slapped together on other, separate grounds. For example, I was considering adding Nicholas Saunderson (and still might, after a bit more work and consideration on the matter), a name that doesn't rapidly spring to the mind of most people nowadays as in any way recognizable; and yet, ... he was hugely famous in his time, holding what is now Stephen Hawking's chair, and does indeed have a good-sized Wikipedia article on him. Nevertheless, likewise, (quite to my surprise!) Wiki currently has no entry for John William 'Blind' Boone, a fairly influential American composer and musician (whose synesthesia is fairly well substantiated but, alas, again, useful references are lacking -- although I be working on it!), although one may find other web pages about him. So, ....

--Sean A. Day 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

hello, i've tried to find some written source for Pharrell, i'm pretty sure there isn't one; atleast not on the internet. googling "pharrell williams" synesthesia OR synaesthesia -"one half" -afi -playlist -records -Thrillseekers -Downstair [this excludes most hits eg, the thrillseekers had a record called synesthesia, there is a "synesthesia records" etc. "one half" eliminates the wikipedia copiers if u were wondering], leaves only 30-something.. and none of them seem to be relevant.
I also tried "Pharrell Williams" "weird colors" -"one half" to see if there was any transcript of the interview; but that only gave 4 results none of which were relevant.
So unless you have hope of actually reaching pharrell-- and i would imagine that a well written letter from the President of the American Synesthesia Association, ie sean, would provoke interest and a response, that is assuming it gets to him, and would no doubt take a long time if it did (incidentally if either of you happened to live in virginia beach i'd imagine it would be quite possible; u already have the address of his childhood home on the video)-- then a desicion on it has to be made? if u were to hypothetically get an interview with pharrell, whilst it might settle your own mind, it wouldn't provide a better citation.. i can see that 'youtube' is not a traditional source, and that in theory the source could be deleted at any time, and it appears to be the only source on the planet, and doesn't mention synaesthesia atall directly however.. also the fact that; it is on an internationally known and reasonably respected channel, broadcast to millions and presumably with records, it is clear it was not an error; as he confirms it, and it comes directly from him, and is clear and varifiable it is actually him.. and it seems like a fairly accurate (if not in depth) description of sound>color synesthesia. There could hypothetically have been loads of more citations to him having synaesthesia, without there being another independant source.. Bungalowbill 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article does look better --- but[edit]

The article has potential but it needs work to tie things together into an overall point. Maybe as you continue to work on it, it will become clearer to you what you are trying to say.

However, APS is not the APA -- it's the group of experimental psychologists that split off and formed its own association in the 1980's or so because it felt APA was too focused on clinical psychology.

Also, you link to Psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience when none of those articles even mention mind wandering. Generalized linking like that in not appropriate in this situation. Likewise, your link is to a APS Symposium page that does not mention mind wandering.

The general issue is interesting, but mind wandering just is not a psychological term, not in DSM-IV etc. so I wish you would keep psychology out of it -- unless you make it clear that you are talking about Experimental Psychology which APS represents. I'm pretty vigilant on this issue of inappropriate references to psychology in Wikipedia articles.

Insomnia, attention-deficit etc. perhaps are more relevant and gets you into the medical, neurological and neuropsychological literature. Mattisse(talk) 22:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mindwandering vs mind-wandering vs mind wandering[edit]

I apoligize to you about mindwandering indeed being on the APS page. My search had not incluced all three versions of the term you are using.

Since you are an experimental psychologist, take it that direction. I'm just super-sensitive after dealing with "Wizard(psychology)", right after "evolutionary psychoanalysis", on the afd list -- the most recent battles. Few people seem to understand the distinction between psychology as a scientific, clinical, and academic profession versus all this pop psychology stuff. It's one thing after another. Sorry if I was overly prickly.

Just make sure you have good sources per WP:V and there will be no problem. Mattisse(talk) 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Started discussion[edit]

Hi Ed. Just to say that I have started up some discussion on your Psychology Wiki page. I am away til the weekend now, but if you have a look at it and give me your views I can pick up with you when I get back.Lifeartist 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramachandran help[edit]

Hi, thanks for the message! I'm impressed that you studied with Ramachandran, I've always respected his work. My background is in Physics, not Neurology, but I've got a personal facination with it, and feel bad that one of the most interesting neurologists in the world has but a mere stub bio. Oliver Sacks has an unfortunately short bio as well.

I'd love your help working on Ramachandran's article, as well as some of the sub articles. I'll write what I can, but I'd love your help keeping the science on track. I'm OK at separating reasonable information from blatant BS, but you need to keep an eye on my details. I'm also pretty good at diagrams and formatting for wiki-consistency, so I'll keep up with that.

You'd probably be much more qualified to work on the professional history of Ramachandran, but I'll help where I'm able. I think Synaesthesia is in pretty good shape, but phantom limb and mirror box need work. Right now it seems like no one ever had phantom pain until 1998. ;) I added a few paragraphs about historical treatments, but the article doesn't really give a sense of how significant the new thoughts about the neurological reasons for phantom limbs really are.

Anyway, look forward to working with you a bit! Phidauex 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the External Links section of synesthesia, I agree, its getting a little dense... I'd like to clean up the see also section as well. I'll try to go through and check out some of the links, to see what really needs to be there. The sectioning has prevented it from being a complete train wreck, but its still thicker than it needs to be.
I'll look over the other articles we've been working on as well. Usually I have to be away from an article for a day or two before I can do a good copyedit, to get a bit of distance. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend reading User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a, its a well written essay on copyediting that I've found to be very useful.
As a GA reviewer, I think synaesthesia is very close to GA status, and FA is not an impossibility. We can submit it for peer review, but peer review has been a little slow recently, so we may not get much response. There are a few things that I think need to be resolved before GA submission. The big one is the spelling thing... I still don't know what to think about that one, synesthesia seems more right to me, but on the other hand, the majority of the refs use synaesthesia... I'll go either way, but we need to make a choice soon. The see also and external links need pruning, but we are already on top of that. I think the lead could stand to be rewritten... It is good now, but still reads like a piecemeal assembly, which it is. The lead should be like a viable summary of the topic. It should be able to stand on its own as a 'mini article' that gives a concise summary of the most salient points of the topic. A good lead is a tricky thing to create, but it can really set the stage for a good article. A bad lead will quickly shoot down any FA attempt. Now that the article is more rich, it may be time to read over the article, and write from scratch a new lead that more effectively communicates the general points of the article. Phidauex 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Response about Neuro and Free will[edit]

There's so much mishmash still there (even after the radical surgert I perfromed on it this morning by just moving the theology section out), that I'm not exactly sure which part you are talking about. The section on Neuroscience and free will or the more general section on science and free will? I haven't looked it over carefully.

BTW, since you are at it, any references you can add for the science section (there are basically none at all) would be helpful. Thanks. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Free will and Tourette[edit]

Thanks for notification about the Tourette issue in the featured article review of the Free will article. I have added a suggestion in the talk page. I wonder if this makes it clearer? - fnielsen 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms


Hey, Just saw the star on Putnam! Congratulations! You deserve a lot of credit for everything you did to make that a Featured Article.

Thanks. Credit goes to other people as well, of course. Hopefully, it really does reflect the highest quality information and writing on Wiki, though I can still subtantial room for improvement on the first score. In any case, I think it's a pretty nice article and I put a lot of work and knowledge into it. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychology wiki[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that I have continued our conversation on my talkpage. Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been thinking!!!Lifeartist 11:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects aren't evil.[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and stop changing [[synaesthesia]] to [[synesthesia|synaesthesia]]. I know you're trying to help, but please, do something productive instead. —Keenan Pepper 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I wish somebody had pointed this guideline out to me about 120 edits ago! Let's start with Keenan's last comment, and work backwards from there...
First, "do something prodcutive instead". In fact, I have been doing something productive, and I find this comment insulting and ill-informed. Compare the synesthesia page now, with the one that I arrived to see just under a month ago [1]. A team of four of us have essentially rewritten an article that had three tags (expert, clean-up, unreferenced) into one that is getting to be GA quality. In addition to the work on the main synesthesia article, I have created several synesthesia related pages, including neural basis of synesthesia, lexical-gustatory synesthesia, ordinal linguistic personification, synesthesia in art and American Synesthesia Association, and contributed to grapheme-color synesthesia, famous synesthetes and cleaned-up an old number form entry. This useful work has begun to attract others, who, for example have created a category tag for our "impressive collection of articles" [2] and offered their unsolicited praise for the changes to the page [3].
In the course of all this work, we standardized our spelling on the modern American spelling, synesthesia [4]. In the end, this led us to decide to move the page from synaesthesia to synesthesia, which I did last night. Along with the move, I read the following instructions:

"Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double redirects (using "What links here") after the move. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go.

— Move instructions, emphasis added


Believing it was my responsibility to make sure that links point where they were supposed to, I spent three hours that I would have loved to be using to do something else, changing all the links to the old synaesthesia page. In most cases, this meant simply changing the link, since many of the pages used modern American English for other distinguishing words (color instead of colour, specialized instead of specialised, etc.). In cases where the British English spelling seemed to be preferred, I used the [[synesthesia|synaesthesia]] code to avoid changing the preferred spelling in article space, while doing what I thought was my job, which was making sure that links continued to point where they were supposed to go. It's worth stressing here that this isn't willy-nilly "link cleanup" but rather something I felt obligated to do, as the mover of the page.
Now that I see that "redirects aren't bad" I guess I could have left it in the minority of cases where the British English spelling was preferred. However, in the large majority of cases (maybe 90-100 out of about 120), the American English spelling was preferred, and therefore my changes not only avoided the redirect, but made the spelling style consistent within the page. Edhubbard 07:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Making spelling consistent within an article is a good thing to do, so it wasn't all a waste of time. Sorry for the confusion! BTW, you can link to a section of an article like this [[Article#Section]]. You don't need the whole URL. —Keenan Pepper 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, EDH. I'm not an admin, but I see clearly the case you are making, and think that any admin would also see it as vandalism, albeit cleverly disguised. In the past, I had a terrible time with vandals on Tourette's, and I can't remember which admin added the article to a vandal bot for me. At any rate, a vandal bot wouldn't pick up the addition of "stub" anyway, so having lots of eyes watching it with you may help (I'll add it to my watchlist, but if you ever need help, let me know). I suggest that you make a post to WP:ANI (or WP:AN3), asking for help from admins. Specifically, ask them if you can be exempted from 3RR in this case, as it is vandalism. And, ask if they can add it to any bot lists to prevent this from occurring. Let me know if that strikes out, or if I can be of any other help. I'm almost certain that User Talk:Commander Keane is the admin who helped me on TS, so that would be another thing to try. (In fact, now that I think of it, try asking him first: he was very helpful on the TS article). Sandy 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Had a closer look: yes, do contact User:Commander Keane, and do ask if he can get that article added to a vandal bot. It gets hit similar to the way TS gets hit. Also, whenever you revert one of them, be sure to add {{subst:test2}} ~~~~ warning template 2 to the user's talk page. Sandy 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I have got someone on IRC to add the article Amputation to the vandalism bot watchlist - so more Recent changes patrollers are likely to spot the vandalism. A bot is not smart enough to revert this type of vandalism, but adding the article to the watchlist will alert Recent changes patrollers every time an anonymous user edits the article, and hopefully someone will spot vandalism and revert it.
If the problem persists you might consider requesting semi-protection of the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which will stop anonymous users from editing the article. As you have done, placing a warning on the IP's talk page is the right thing to do. In the case of, an IP check shows that it belongs to a school or university, so the same student may not actually get the warning message and respond.
The 3RR does not apply to senseless vandalism like this (and applies to a 24 hour period anyhow). Hope that helps :-) --Commander Keane 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed the vandal patrolling is working ! Sandy 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL - we were doing the same thing at the same time (vacation, internet cafes). The patrolling is working so well, I was considering removing the article from my watchlist. What do you think? By the way, there is another Philosophy FAR in need of input, votes, whatever: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive1. Sandy 17:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cognition tag on synesthesia pages[edit]

Hmm... Thinking about it, it might make sense to make Category:Synesthesia a subcategory of Category:Cognition. Beno1000 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how did you come to be interested in the synesthesia pages?
I'm studying A-Level psychology and I was doing a little bit of research about it on Wikipedia and I thought it might be useful to categorise it under cognition. Plus I have several psychiatric disorders (Asperger Syndrome, bipolar disorder and a mild form of epilepsy) so I'm interested in looking up different psychiatric conditions in general. Beno1000 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with your A-levels!
Thanks! Beno1000 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for synesthesia article?[edit]

How does one go about getting a peer review on an article. My main project, along with a few others has been to improve the synesthesia page to a reasonable status. I started working on it on July 25, and it was a mess; tagged with expert, clean-up and unreferenced tags. Now, I am starting to hope that it is a good summary style article, with shiny new Harvard reference-style references, and factually acrruate (compare here [[5]]). At this point, what I'd like is for someone who hasn't been too closely associated with our edits to come and give it a look over, and to highlight any particular weak spots, etc. In particular, the article is a little longer than I would like so any thoughts on trimming or farming out to our fork pages would be appreciated. Edhubbard 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Striking through comments below as completing; not trying to disagree Edhubbard 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can give you a couple of leads:
  • Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and post a request for help on their talk page. Ditto for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. Neurology isn't necessarily their forte, but some of them are willing to help out.
  • In particular, also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). I resisted the overly-disease-oriented format there at first, but once I used it for Tourette syndrome, I found it helpful, and that it helped me see what areas I hadn't covered well. In particular, notice there how they recommend my TS article in terms of how to handle "Notables" or "famous cases": your notable list isn't referenced, and you might have a look at how I did it. Your Table of Contents also might need to be tightened up.
  • In terms of items a peer review would note:
    • You need far better inline citations. Have a look at Tourette syndrome and Cystic fibrosis (a recent medical FA). You mix referencing styles, with some Harvard style inlines, and other footnotes. You have only three notes, which aren't necessarily reliable sources. You need to incorporate one style for all of your inline citations. (Don't forget to employ PubMed links -- again, see TS and cystic fibrosis). Your inline cites would be better converted to the cite:php mechanism for footnotes (see TS). Even though Harvard style references are accepted, in practice, most medical articles on Wiki are moving towards the other format.
    • You don't follow WP:GTL - External links and further reading go last.
    • You have what is referred to as a "link farm" in External links; see WP:NOT and WP:EL, and also refer to the above article on writing medical articles. You might try to pare that down.
    • Your section headings don't conform to WP:MOS: have a look at the guidelines there. If the title of the article is repeated in the section headings, there's a problem in the section headings.
    • I didn't look at your article content, since I know nothing of your area, but I recommend you look at [[6]] and in particular, Tony's page at the bottom of that page.
So, in terms of how to proceed from here, I recommend that you read everything above and get all that preliminary work done, then ask for help from the medical projects, and then, last, list it at peer review (which isn't always very helpful) - WP:PR. Let me know if you need any further guidance: this is just a start. Sandy 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like more than one thing is going on in that debate. 1) A newcomer to the article has fixated on a minor point: maybe let it go for a while and come back to it. Don't let it sidetrack your other work; it's a big deal about a small point. 2) Do you want the second article to be a list or an article, which then employs summary style? A list is a list: I used an article, and then summarized important text back to the main article. Epilepsy uses a list (and a featured one): it gives you a sample of how that can be done. List of people with epilepsy. Yes, if you go with a list, it's harder to summarize it back to the main article, but I think the new poster is wrong to call it a POV fork. You can summarize the most important or best known cases back to the main article: that is not POV. For me to discuss the two most important and well-known TS people back to the main article is not POV - it's summary style. But, you can also solve the whole problem by handling it as epilepsy did: the list is only linked to the article in See also - no need to carry the info twice. Sandy 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks - I'll leave a note later today at that Project. The only means I have of knowing which projects to notify are those that are linking to the article. Thanks for the help ! Sandy 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope that's what is bothering him: I didn't realize he had been hit so hard by the GA notifications. They were only intended to let people know that articles should gradually be brought to standard. He added some not so good stuff to his user page :-( Sandy 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly recognize and value his contributions, feel like I understand his neurochemistry very well, and besides that I've lived in Italy and have Italian relatives: but my patience ends when he refuses my help and friendship, and insults me as well. I've been patient and defended him to others for a very long time. Sandy 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm patient, but today my thick skin suit has been worn a little thin. Sandy 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is something more than a General Encylopedia[edit]

Ok, here's the deal. The fact is you will not find many of the articles that are on Wikipedia in a general encylopedia. There are innumerable specialist articles here. There's no other way to put it: Wikipedia is no longer a general encylopedia and should not be held to the same standards. I think it will be an inevitable progression in the procedures for evaluating articles that the specialist articles will no longer fall within in the scope of knowledge of the average reviewer. Eventually, there will have to be grading systems within the individual projects and this is what will determime wthere an article is excellent, good, moderate and so on. the same people who review film articles cannot review articles like anomalous monism.--Francesco Franco 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you have my page on your watch list, now, too so I'll reply here.
I think you have a good point here... The English Wikipedia has definitely grown beyond its humble beginnings (I just had a look at that Italian FA). It's no longer an encyclopedia in the sense of Britannica (the cannon of knowledge, and nothing but the cannon) but rather, an attempt at creating an encyclopedia in the original sense; a compedium of the totality of human knowledge, which is a very worthy goal.
But, that's where things get complicated. At the borders of what we know, or think we know, there is still a lot of debate. Some of it is scientific, and should be reflected in the articles. Some of it, though, is POV, and should not be. The more I've been thinking about this, the more I've come to realize that the referencing thing isn't just due to the need for scientific rigor... If it were, many articles would be fine as they were. Rather, it's because we cannot assume any shared background, and that articles need to be made almost 100% watertight against *anyone* who might come along and argue about something... "prove to me that the Earth is round... show me a ciation" Or, for example, arguing with the people who really believe that the moon landings were a hoax, that Bush actually planned 9/11, or that there are aliens who can read our thoughts and who we need to protect against by wearing a tin-foil hat. "Show me a reference that says that aliens don't exist, and that they can't read my thoughts" (show me a reference proving the negative... great!). This is where wikipedia is frustrating. In some ways, it's just a bulletin board for the culture wars... but to counteract that, we now have overly restrictive referencing policies that we don't need within, for example, the philosophy or neuroscience communities, and the sometimes frustrating realization that you can't find a citation for something because it has been so taken for granted that no one has even bothered to write a peer-reviewed article on it.
As for reviewing, I think that it has been assumed that people that are interested in a topic are the ones that will review, and if someone who cares about film also cares about anomalous monism, then they will edit and comment on both, and there is no conflict there. The problem is when people who support ID feel like they can and should vote on the scientific accuracy of the age of the earth, or something like that. Where politics, social values and science clash the debate becomes far too heated, and in these cases, it although it seems like the fight for truth is eventually won by the side that can produce the best evidence, the battle is always accompanied by unnessecary causualties (editors leaving, etc). For some of these things, there has to be a better way than the current system of edit, revert, discuss... perhaps the system should become more one of discuss and edit for any article above a certain level of quality and length, no matter how contentious it might or might not be. I don't know. Edhubbard 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Synesthesia (Buck 65)
Psychotic depression
Cognitive neuroscience
Theory of descriptions
Charles Bonnet syndrome
Psychedelic literature
Henriett Seth-F.
D-lysergic acid N-(α-hydroxyethyl)amide
Hard and soft drugs
Up the Downstair
Stimulus modality
Attention versus memory in prefrontal cortex
List of NLP-related articles
Gregory Currie
Reductive materialism
Regress argument
Add Sources
Visual perception
Mood (psychology)
Database administrator
Bernard Parmegiani
Semantic memory
Fritz Perls

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


I see we have another crank with a masters in softward engineering (or something like that) who is possting BS all over the Free Will talk page. I was deeply offended by the comment on the bottom of that page and I am in a VERY, VEEEEEEEEEERY deep state of depression right now. I am strongly tempted to do one of two things 1) respond with a massive outbruft of raging hostility 2) abandond Wackipedia again and leave a note on my userpage with an image of my middle finger. --Francesco Franco 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that... Sorry to take so long to respond, but I had a research day that made me think about giving research the middle finger. From 8 am to 10 pm, nothing but frustrations, nothing works, we had four and five people working on it the whole day, still no good... I think it might be best to adopt a "don't feed the trolls" policy with him. If he restricts his crap to the talk page, I will gladly leave it be, and not respond. If he starts to screw with the page itself, then I will intervene. Of course, if you want to fight the troll, I got your back, man (also read your Dangerfield comment). In the meantime, just remember the trolls win if they drive off one of, if not the best, philosophy editor on wikipedia. Edhubbard 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
To illustrate just what a troll he is, look at his edit history [7]. He literally has more edits on the talk page for the Free will article than on anything else. Apparently he came to the free will article, shortly after he posted his particular view that "Compatibilism makes sense" on the Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism talk page [8]. Since then, he has contributed nothing to any other pages, and has simply argued in unreferenced, OR, POV fasion for his views... as I said, a troll. I won't feed him unless he starts to touch the article. Edhubbard 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've calmed down substantially at this point.

But I needed to vent the frustration somewhere. Thanks for understanding and responding. I will obviously try to stick to politeness and reasoning on the talk page of the article and I have deleted the angry outburst from my own talk page. --Francesco Franco 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding Free will to my watchlist: I'll periodically try to make sure damage isn't done, but I might not know the "good" stuff from the "bad". Sandy 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the topic well enough to provide perspective, but if unsourced OR is being inserted, I'll revert. I hope you all will keep track of the "last, best version" if it deteriorates. Sandy 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know whenever you need help. Sandy 21:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Olaf Blanke Study[edit]

Dear Edhubbard, I was wondering if you have a link to the study by Olaf Blanke, I tried the link in our discussion but kept getting an error page, do you have an alternative or direct link? I would like to compare his findings and approach to those of Michael Persinger. I must say I did find the discussion interesting and thoughtful, which was a refreshing change to the usual ad hominum arguments and indignant dismissive attitude I usually encounter here. If you have any more information you can send me please do so, I like to be informed of both sides of the debate. Best wishes - Solar 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Solar, Sorry for the delay in responding. I was away at the Society for Neuroscience conference in Atlanta. Did you mean the link to his lab website? I double checked the link, and it seemed to work, but just in case, give it a try like this: If you still have troubles, let me know, and I'll try to figure out what's going on. Maybe his site was just down when you tried? I'll also post this to your talk page. Edhubbard 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I did manage to find it via a web search, as you say the server must have been down when I tried. Thanks again - Solar 23:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In comparing Persinger and Blanke I wanted to find if there was any reference to Blanke's attitude towards objective factors in these experiences and interestingly I found that in a 2002 BBC radio debate Blanke stated that one of his patients was able to make accurate visual observations while in an OBE state. In fact he conceded the possibility of the objective out-of-body experience, stating many more studies should be carried out. Unfortunately he chose to bias his article in Nature and not mention this. This reveals that Blanke is in a similar position to Persinger, although Persinger has already worked with Ingo Swann and clearly supports psi as a reality. I thought this might be of interest to you, Best wishes - Solar 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a philosophy blog[edit]

I will post my "original research" and POV (OH MY GAAAAAWD!!) and my name is attached automagically to evetything I write. Nobody can edit it without my permission!! Ohhhh, I like this idea better than Wikipedia. In fact, I was thinking of creating a spin.-off project where I would post only articles I have written. It would be called Francescopedia. --Francesco Franco 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds great! I'd be happy to read your philoblog. Wanna send me the link (off wiki)? Edhubbard 23:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Here it is. --Francesco Franco 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neuroscience section[edit]

Thanks for your professional input on the neuroscience section, it looks much clearer. If you could add some explanation in layman’s terms of the general functions of the areas of the brain mentioned I think that would also be an improvement. I was not aware of the original data having not been published, it does seem odd, but it would make little difference to the psi debate as there are countless studies of psi ability which have been fully published, including studies of Ingo Swann. I think the psi issue is a side area for Persinger but one that his findings support. What are your thoughts on Blanke's belief that there should be more study of the psi area in a neuroscience context due to the objective experience of one of his patients? PS: Also thanks for the positive comment on the deletion page for Project Rational Skepticism. - Solar 20:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's something for you[edit]

This looks extremely interesting. But I am not competent to contribute. You might be interested.--Francesco Franco 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Ed. Thanks v much for the sandbox etc.. I too will be rather busy for the next week or so, but I'll have a go. Thanks also for your comments re Laplace, you're right it's better to leave the might and put the issues in the LD. Though the more I think about it the more I think it's a red herring, a perfect example of a 19th C argument that was really killed in the 20th C. NBeale 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Ed. The carefully crafted consenus we had on the definition of Delusion has been removed by two of the "defenders of the faith" who systematically remove things that may be seen as critical of the Great Man. I see from your comment on talk that you are working on it - thanks. Seems to me that the syndromes you mention do fit the DSM - "what everybody else believes" clearly means "everybody else who has an opinion on the matter" :-) NBeale 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed. If a ref to a single direct quote from an official source is OR then all of Wikipedia is OR. This does not make sense. Be Bold is the slogan, surely. NBeale 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I had a go at responding to your helpfully detailed comments on the Noble, Conway Morris, Bateson, Midgley issue, both on the talk page and then, after a delay, in the article. Spark promptly reverted. I hope I have addressed your concerns: if I haven't then please explain and/or insert your suggested alternative text. If I have you might either insert mine or indicate your agreement on the talk page. Many thanks. NBeale 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Salz image[edit]

Hi Ed, Thank you very much for the rewording of the copyright statement. I find the wiki copyright requirements quite confusing. The fact is that Anne loves to see her painting on Wiki but I was not able to upload it without Wiki warnings for speedy deletion. Again, thanks a lot. Cretien 22/11/06

Homo floresiensis[edit]

(moved from main page to talk page) Sir, I apologize for deleting an article. It was not done with malice. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

- H.R. Eaton

Hello. I just have a quick question. Does the majority of evidence point to Homo floresiensis being Homo sapiens suffering from Microcephaly? Or does it point to a new sub species? Edhubbard (3:00, 22 November 2006)

The Scientific Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-atom3.png The E=MC2 Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to neuroscientific topics and your work on the Out-of-Body Experience article. - Solar 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Long time no see[edit]

Its good to be back. :) I go on "Wiki-binges" where I spend a lot of time editing, then real life catches up, and I have to drop it for a while, then come back later. In the last case, August and September are completely absorbed the the process of planning for, and going to Burning Man, which ends up being a momentous task involving buses, hitchhiking, making biodiesel in the parking lot of a Chinese restaurant, etc. And thats all before even getting there. No time for editing. Hopefully this winter I can spend more time editing. I'd like to continue to help out where I can. If you want to make a push for FA on Synesthesia, I'll help as I'm able. Phidauex 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind[edit]

Hey, there -- are you aware that Philosophy of mind just showed up at WP:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there - do you think you can coax an update out of someone on the FAR? The two-week review period is just about up, and we've had no recent feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a question can induce the reform of neutrality, but conflict does induce prowess. I understand this. I will, however, argue the correlation of neutrality to philosophy, and argue the prerequisition of any theories I have "tried" to express. My additions have no new scientific data which needs to be reference - but only correlations between logic and language.

"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct PRINCIPLES of reasoning (logic).[1]"

Perhaps you think science doesn't belong in philosophy; I understand this, however, a principle is a concept/thought/neurotransmitter. The correct principals of reasoning and logic are science. To form an abstraction around a perceived perogative such as "honoring" the principals and mysticsm around philosophy (we must remember Plato was born when foolishness like Gods of Wine and such existed) isn't highly potentiated.

Undermining the meaning of the logical process to which Philosophy is practically based upon isn't a direction I'm ready to let this article be subjected to. Mysticsm or a simple concept of neutrality can undermine what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics). Therefore, your arguements do not correlate with philosophy nor does the fundamental Wikipedia principles have anything to do with my additions besides you.

"Some theorists adopt the stance that any given philosophy is merely a reflection of the way that a person is socially embedded in a certain culture. To put it in Hegel's terms, "Philosophy is that which grasps its own era in thought."[8]"

This own era of thought is the definitive: the absolute: the thought which thinks itself; the catalyst. I suggest that the concept of a foreground, or "start" of a "the" flowchart in respect to underlying the concept of answering questions (remember conflict induces prowess, and evolution is a fact of this, and therefore humans and animals have a strong relation to questions and answers) with an answer/logic/science, is far more objective +(Wiki+rules=neutral) than subjective +(Wiki-rules=bias), because I am using inductive reasoning - which is a strong prerequisition of objectivity. See for yourself: General Applications/Objectivism.[9]

Unbias doesn't neccessarily mean unlogical. Is that not the goal of a philosophys' logical principal/thought/concept/aminoacids: to provide clarity/reason?--User talk:InternetHero 24:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll play dirty 2. Jurplesman is for real and he don't take nonsense.

"Jurplesman, sorry to talk to you here, but I can't send a PM for some reason.

I've studied under you from other names, maybe you remember 1 (Warpath), but I got banned under that 1.

Anyway, I know you've got issues with wikipedia, and I've recently taken an enjoyment in adding to some articles. I've come across some respectable and easy-going members dedicated to helping the principal, and of course, more often than not, I've come across hoarding editors fit only to see their colaborations beforehand be imune to reform.

I was easily able to out-discuss most of the editors who rejected simple clarification - from simple words, to concepts, but now, I've come across an editor with some friends.

My question is: how do you view wikipedia presently and am I wrong to stick to my guns?

The main arguements were correlated with science not being able to be contrasted into philosophy, but easily, I refuted such claims. Now it is a mere matter of Wikipedias' code of conduct stating that any opinions and arguements are totaly inappropiate.

The silver lining is, any arguements therein were on the Talk page :D And any opinions I may or may not have portrayed are reconstructions of other articles simple copied and pasted. LOL

The article is Philosophy of Mind. Can you help me in any way, Jurplesman." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


So what's the big deal about this organ anyway? Just another lump of rotting meat with unusal electical and chemical patterns going on there, isn't it? (-; The brain secretes mind like the liver secretes bile!! Indeed. Mankind hasn't even touched the infintesimal speck of dust sitting on the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg in this area. Someone will perhaps understand what happened to my own brain, objectively, in about three hundred tears. I will insist on a throughough autopsy to ensure that what is there, but has not been discovered by MRIs, etc.., is actually found out. Experientially, however, no one will ever have a clue.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was not quite my point. But, then, you neuros do tend to be far too reductionist/eleiminsativst even for my physicalist tastes. The problem is that if one knows absolutely everything there is to know about the stomach, then eo ipso one knows everything that there can possibly be to know about digestion. On the other hand, along the lines of Frank Jackson's famous knwoledge argument, if one eventually knows everything single detail of electoehcimcal interactions, actions potentionals, signaling, precial mathemtiecal equatiosn to predict the future dvelopments of synaptic conncetions and so on, one will still not KNOW something fundamental: what was it like to be in that brain state (e.g. seeing red) for that particular body at that particualr time in that particular moment.This sensation is extraodinarily context-dependent and therefore defies abtrsaction and mathematical generalization. Seeing red-for-y-at-t-in-l is not the same as seeing red-for-y-at-t1-in-l much seeing red-for-q-at-t-in-p, etc.. You and I may be wired up in the exact same neuroligical configutation, and yet the red that this body sees is what that body has learned to call green and viceversa. The red that this body sees today is almosy certainly not the same red that this body experienced 10 years ago and yet the wavelengths are exactly the same. Anyway, that's one problem. And I don'0t think it's just a question of computational power or of language. Not one of ontology either, of course. I think it is fundamnetally a question of epistemological limitation in principle and nor just as a computational/practical matter.
Anyway, my point was that most of you neuros are so damned confused and confusing on the matters that you can't even get basic stuff sorted out: is depression, for example, a mental or a phsycial disorder. If it is mental, what does this mean?? Where is it? etc.. in my ASS, my teeth, my toes? Why is it a disease or disorder? What exactly has gone wrong with the so-called mind process, how is this fixed, how did it arise,etc. etc,,?? If it is physical (as you must surely agree), why is is categorized as a mental disorder and treated by pschyistrists and phychologiists (i.e. MIND and BEHAVIOR fixers, whatever the hell that means) rather than BRAIN doctors (i,e, neurologists). Is it a disease like diabetes, encaphalitis, Parkinsons, cancer, etc...? If so, why can't it be tested for and localized like these other diseases instead of being first described in terms of undesirable behavioral manifetsations and then controlled by drugs which are determined to work because they have allegedly relieved the symptoms (perhaps by pharmcologically lobotomizing the patient??). What if there are diseases which have not yet been discovered which mimic the behaviroal manifestations of various allegedly pshchyolgocial disorders? What if there are infinitely many and they are all different one from another? How many people may have been locked up, labeled as looney and treated with the wrong medications, even killed, as a conseeuqnce of this fact.

PS: sorry for the extreme sloppiness, but I'm still on this 56 connecetion which lasts for two minutes and I don't have time to type carefully. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the simplest terms possible: I beleive this is a genuinely philosophical problem. Like all philosophical problems, it has no solution. It's like actualism versus possibilism or four-dimensional endurantism versus perdurantism. These are actually intersting questions. Hopelelessy non-empirical though. Genuine problems which we can't answer and which, fundamnetally, are not really all that important. I'm finding it incerasingly difficult to take philosophy seriously, at all. This is what I was trying to get it. No point. Why do I waste my time studying useless subjects with no practical implications for anyone on earth, and which I am not even particularly gifted at? Because I'm no use to anyone in any case. I can do nothing outstandingly well. Just another Gustav van Aschanbach-mediocrity. I started out in music in fact. I was happy then. Full of illusions, hopes and grandiose fantasies. Then nature took it all away. Who cares? Enough. But you have actually studies a useful field and probably even helped people. Why bother with philosophical nonsense? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

Say, what happened to EdHubbard??[edit]

You alright there guaiyo'? What happened? I'm finally up and running in broad-band and everything (and eveyone) seems dead!! You quit the show or what? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System, along with discussing ways to improve the article. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 14:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Capgras Syndrome[edit]

I´m a young spanish neuropsychologist who red two years ago Ramachandran´s book Phantoms in the brain and I simply loved it. I thouht you would be interested in knowing that I have added a whole paragraph in the Capgras Syndrome article about Ramachandran´s patient. It´s a pleuseure meeting you. --Garrondo 11:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review[edit]

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Synesthesia question[edit]

I've read in your papers about the possible use of synesthesia in normal people (eg, "loud shirt", "sharp cheddar"). Are these really examples of synesthesia? After all, people aren't really hearing noises when they see a shirt, or feeling stabbing pains when they eat cheese. Isn't it more likely that these phrases simply originated from someone(s) with a gift for metaphor, and were picked up as part of the language? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-14 21:01Z

Color focus illusion[edit]

I was hoping you might be able to explain what cause the following optical illusion. If you look at this image, while moving closer to the image, and fixating at the center, you will see the red colors grow in size, but as you pull back, the blue colors grow larger. If you fixate on one of the corners instead of the center of the image, the reverse occurs (i.e., blue colors grow as you move closer to the image). Thanks for any insight you can provide. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-18 03:45Z

Something different[edit]

If you haven't seen it already, here's a series you might enjoy:

[10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lacatosias (talkcontribs) 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I need help with another ++++++ who's crapping on philosophy of mind, if you have any time and desire to do so. Thanks. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


My apologies - what you ended up doing to attention is what I would have liked to do anyway, but didn't realize there was a better way. Thanks for fixing my mistake.

WLU 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my changes, I would have gotten to it eventually but now I don't have to. Much appreciated. WLU


Hello Dr. Hubbard. First of all, allow me to thank you again for all the work you have done on the synesthesia content on Wikipedia. I have used the Synesthesia article several times as a shining example to convince people of the promise of wikipedia as a reliable and accurate medium, comparing the article that I tagged just one year ago with the version that stands today.

That done with, I'd like to invite you to take a look at the Wiktionary Synaesthesia entry and make sure the definitions are accurate and appropriate. It looks good to me, but your expertise would be appreciated. Thanks very much in advance. Torgo 05:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. With a little research following your references, I think we'll be able to improve the entry a bit. Torgo 08:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be great. I'll send you an email. Torgo 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I'll have to do a little more research (just found a copy of the Calkins article), and hopefully we can get a decent etymology going. The wiktionary policy on etymologies seems to be uncertain at the moment, so it looks as though there's plenty of room for paving the way... I'm going to bed now, but if I have any more questions, I'll get back to you. Thanks again. Torgo 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found it on JSTOR. I've sent it to you via email. Torgo 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just realized you gave me two citations for Calkins. I've just found the other one, in case that's the one you were actually talking about (that you had trouble finding). I can email that to you if you like. Also, I was wondering why the word 'synaesthesia' never actually appeard in the (other) article : ) Torgo 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple more things, when you get a chance. Could you, in fact, send me the french text of the Flournoy article (we can quote it in the french entry) if it's convenient. Also, have you or anyone else you know of claimed in a published work that the Calkins article is the first English usage of the word? That would be something we could cite in the entry. Not comletely necessary, but it would be nice. And finally, would you be willing to grant us permission to use your translation of a portion of the Flournoy text (at most a couple of the relevant paragraphs). I understand that it isn't complete, so let me know about that. If not, we can work around it. Thanks again for your help. Torgo 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary at Color? Glad you like it. The edit summary is a neglected miniature art form, in my opinion. – Noetica♬♩Talk 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robyn Hitchcock[edit]

Hi Ed - unfortunately most of the information I have is from tapes of (undated) radio interviews and the like. I've put out a request for source information on the Robyn Hitchcock email mailing list, so hopefully someone there can come up with something more definitive.

BTW, thank you for your work on synaesthesia and related themes on Wikipedia. It's an area that fascinates me though it is only peripheral to the areas I studied - my MSc is in visual perception, but on perception of angular extent (my supervisor for that is also an occasional editor here - User:Robert P. O'Shea). Grutness...wha? 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Job Offer[edit]

Ho, I just had an idea, old fellow. Why don't you just quit this lunatic research into synesthesia and other neuro-phenomena and I will pay you fifty centesimi or three sticks of freshly made [Torrone di Benevento] (whichever you prefer) to post an article on my blog every week or so?? What sayst though? This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!! but I will not insist on the matter. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange request...[edit]

Hey Ed! I've been meaning to ask you this for a while... is it possible that a synesthetic might exist who was able to control their abilities to a point where they really "saw" things that were there, but invisible to those who interpret their senses normally? What I mean is, something like, being able to see radio waves, or see the wind. { Ben S. Nelson } 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That was extremely helpful, thank you. I ask because I've been writing a science-fiction story (on-and-off) which features a synesthetic character (a robber) who is able to "see", for instance, a security system that uses invisible lasers. The idea I had was exactly like what you expressed with your TV example: somehow, he was able to "hear" the beams, and then translate that into visual information. I didn't want to go *too* far out into gobbledygook sci-fi with this, so the tone-color synesthetic example is quite useful to know about. { Ben S. Nelson } 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

not really wiki...[edit]

hi there. urm i'm not sure if this is really done on wikipedia (i'm pretty new to editting at the moment) but i'll go ahead.

i'm a neuroscience student at UCL london and am looking for a bit of advice on something. i'm in my first year and am really enjoying the course and so i'd like to do something in the summer that would be beneficial and informative. i'd like to have some experiences in the field out the context of the lecture hall. what advice would you give about how to pursue this? idealy i'd like to spend a couple of months in a university in china or other asia country (got the asian bug on my "gap year"). I totally realise this is a strange way to get advice, but i've found with these kind of things the further you spread your net the better your catch will be. I'm not really having much luck at the moment tho'...

anyway i would be extremely grateful for any advice you could give me, best regards Dylan2106 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone changed the school colors at the UC Berkeley article from Yale blue and California gold to simply blue and gold. Aren't you going to do something about it? Jay Gatsby(talk) 09:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You gotta' love it[edit]

Hitchen's on death of Fallill.

What rule?[edit]


Back from US[edit]

How're things going? Just got back from three-week visit to States. My head feels like it has been continuously pumped up with oxygen like a hot air balloon for about 20 years,and as if it is being squeezed and pushed and pulled around simulatneously in about 25 different directions. I find it increasingly difficult to locate my bodily position and orientation with respect to the external world. Everthing is almost beginning to seem as if I were a one-dimensial being in a two-dimensional and flat universe. I find it extraordinarily difficult to navigate things like airports because its as if the whole aiport and the objects and people in it lack depth, width and height. I can only focus on the thing immeditaly before me, then I get lost in chaos. It's like trying to walk and intreract with a television or computer image. Horrifying and bizarre. Have you ever heard of anything similar? All I ever get (and probably will continue to get) from the medicos is: "we can find no organic explanation, take this anti-depressant, this anti-anxiety, this other psyhcopharma. etc,..." If I respond like this: "But none of this stuff works or is helping at all really", the answer is invariably "well,. let's try this (usually stronger and equally poorly uinderstood) psychopharma." This end result of this process is invariably he following: intense drowsiness and 16 hours of sleep a day. What kind of life it THAT?? So, these days, I have to tell the medicos: everything is going not too badly. I'm feeling about the same. translation: please leave me the fuck alone and don't make things worse, as you always end up doing when I say there is anything wrong with me and try to describe the indescribable and preposterous horror that I experience every day. At any rate, can you recommend any good, up-to-date neuroscience books of about intermediate level. I'm getting a bit weary of philosophy. --Francesco Franco 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dennett quote[edit]

hi, i've started a section about the quote i removed at talk:Daniel Dennett. I won't insist much on the edit but would like to hear your opinion. trespassers william 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


how does one go about blocking people who have removed warnings after they were warned doing that got you blocked? Foxsux 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one doing the harassing, vandalizing a user page, and violating 3rr in a couple places:
Edhubbard, please tame this person and/or block them.-- Fyslee/talk 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee, I'm not an admin, so I can't, but if this continues, I will be reporting him/her to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It's clearly a problem here. Edhubbard 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
He's blocked now. -- Fyslee/talk 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just writing a reply to his question, trying to help, and not WP:bite the newbie, but it's obvious that he's/she's going strong to make friends around here ;-) Edhubbard 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good intentions, but this was a particularly obstinate one, so off with the kid gloves and on with the brass knuckles! -- Fyslee/talk 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know... It looks like he's trying to contest the block now, or more precisely, take Orbis down with him. I'm tempted to raise this little edit [11], which I originally didn't appreciate as vandalism. I think he might not be as newbie as his edit history suggests. Edhubbard 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Einstein was not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal God. However, he never clearly said anything about his views on impersonal God. Please see: RS2007 11:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this to the List of atheists discussion page, where it belongs. Edhubbard 12:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the exact source, but there is one quote in which Einstein very clearly dissociated himself from atheism. Something to the effect that rejecting the possibility of divinity/God/whatever was as absurd to him as accepting it. In another place, he ambivalently accepts "Spinoza's God". Of course, "Spinoza's god" (most interpret as pantheism but not all) is itself something that would need to be clarified.It's terminologically and categorially confounding, but that's Einstein for you. So what's new? --Francesco Franco 09:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder[edit]

I see from the talk page comment that you left on User:Bishonen's page that you agreed that User:StandardName's edits to this article were extremely POV-pushing. Problem is that he's gotten other people with longterm similar agendas (or gone back to an old account, as something about his editing history seems VERY suspicious for an alleged new editor) to revert to that same massively POV-pushing version. I reverted again, but I expect there to be problems with this group. If you could watch the article I would appreciate it. DreamGuy 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

memory / wilson's syndrome[edit]

I see you re-added the reference to Wilson's syndrome to memory that someone had removed. I re-removed it, because as far as I can tell this syndrome doesn't exist. See here for an argument of that point. Just because a term comes up in google search results doesn't make it real. Overall I'm not sure it is appropriate to list it on the memory page. If you still feel like it should be included on the page, we should mention it on the talk page there and see how others feel. digfarenough (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eliminative materialism and Mary Midgley[edit]

I haven't explained the consequences of synthetic biology, so it is understandable why you'd think that synthetic biology does not impact Midgley's arugment greatly.
However, if biologists succeed in creating "living" out of non-living materials, that is creating even DNA from scratch, I think that it does show Midgley's argument that biology cannot be reducible to chemistry is wrong. Sorry about this long run on sentence. stampit (talk) 17 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


It's tough for me to defend the new version of article as improving substantially on the old version. A great amount of text is added, but it is not developed methodically, and much of it has the tone of a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. The portions that summarize the science do not seem to be written for a general audience, and could use substiantial copyediting. The lead does not conform to the guidelines at WP:LEAD in terms of length and content—much of it should be re-integrated into sections that come later in the article. Thanks for your continued work on the article. I hope we can work together to improve it further. I won't revert it back for now, but I hope you will take my criticisms to heart and work to bring it back to an acceptable state. Robert K S (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensitive edits. It's getting better. Robert K S (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stressed?[edit] ? Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer review/Concussion[edit]

Hey Ed, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I noticed you're the only active expert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Contributors, and I'd love it if you could comment at the review of concussion. There have been several comments at on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot talk 10:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to do such a detailed review, I sure appreciate it. delldot talk 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Free will[edit]

Hey there, just to let you know, doing stuff like this is discouraged. Do that sort of thing again, and someone is going to invoke the 3R rule.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy and pasting my edits I see. In fairness, the burden rests on both your shoulders to resolve this dispute peacefully, rather than making your point by multiple reverts and revisions. However, I believe that hubbard here is right, since talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article, and anything which goes on at length and is overly wordy is rather unproductive.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kerotan. Hopefully, some other people will get involved on the free will page to help keep it up to FA quality. It's incidents like what's happening with LoveMonkey that drove one of our best philosophy editors, Francesco Franco. Edhubbard (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Series of socks?[edit]

I was thinking the exact same thing and I was going to comment on it while Pokegirl was still on the noticeboard but then they were blocked before I could click "save page". To see if they are the same person/same IP it would be best to make a checkuser report and then it would be up to the deciding admins to decide whether to block the IP for some time. But I have the most vandalised pages on my watchlist incase our little friend decides to return. AngelOfSadness talk 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokegirl14 and sockpuppetry[edit]

Hey, it looks like you're onto a pattern with User:Pokegirl14 and her (sic) apparent previous incarnations. Can you write up a sockpuppetry case describing the sequence of edits for WP:SSP? That's where the long-term stuff like this gets handled. I don't know if they'll block the IP, but the regulars there would have more strategies to deal with it—certainly moreso than gets done at WP:AIV. Thank you, good catch of the pattern, and happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I can't quite figure out how to do it on that page! Edhubbard (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I could help write the report. It should be a lot easier to do considering all of the known suspected sockpuppets are blocked and then if more come along we could add them to the report as they arrive. AngelOfSadness talk 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've figured out how to start the report, and I'm working on getting the diffs now for the evidence section, but if you want to help, that would be great. Give me about ten minutes to complete some edits so that we don't ec on that page... BTW, have you seen anyone before Felipe Garcia? I first saw him on the Kyle Busch page, but there might be parents earlier than that. Cheers Edhubbard (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok sure. :) I haven't seen any other s.sockpuppets before Felipe Garcia, so it might be best to name that user the "suspected sockpuppeteer" in the report assuming he was the first one and name the others the "suspected sockpuppets". If I find anything indicating other possible sockpuppets, I'll let you know . AngelOfSadness talk 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be filed now here. Take a look and see if you have more to add. Edhubbard (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll see what I can do :). Also I'm fairly sure it was the Kyle Petty page the sockpuppets were changing not the Kyle Busch page. Is it ok if I change that in the report? AngelOfSadness talk 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thannks. You're right. At least the diffs go to the right place :-) Edhubbard (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The diffs are pretty much the most important thing in the reports, well I think it is :). I think it would be important to mention the ACLA/Latino/Mexican threats/personal attacks, as them by themselves, can quickly show that it is very much the same person as they are very distinctive and then the other articles the s.sockpuppets have been editing would also need to be mentioned - all of which I can do. AngelOfSadness talk 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(resetting) That would be great. I've also left a message on Sandy's talk page about the SSP report, since she was one of the people attacked, and perhaps she can add her own evidence, too. Edhubbard (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have added the threat/personal attacks diffs to the report, now I just have to add the odd Pokemon edits that link up every single one of these users yet again. Will I translude the report onto the main sockpuppet reports page when I'm done or should we wait for the other editor's reply in case they have something to add before translusion. AngelOfSadness talk 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks! I'd say let's wait just a little longer to see what others may have to add. Edhubbard (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Sandy has enough on her plate already. I'd say we're ready to submit. If you want to transclude, I'll start adding the template to the user pages (they're all blocked, but anyway). Edhubbard (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I better start transluding away then :) AngelOfSadness talk 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. I think that's taken care of. Nice working with you (as nice as something like that can be!). That probably will be all of my wikicontributions for the day :-( Gotta do some real work! Edhubbard (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It was lovely working with you too. I'll keep an eye on those articles for the next few hours and the other eye on the report in case someone else has a new revelation or our little friend returns. AngelOfSadness talk 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I added two more sockpuppets to the report: User:Selldonutsatmydoor and User:CutLilPuppyDog31 but when once they got blocked, the report was closed as all of the users suspected sockpuppets mentioned were blocked. If more sockpuppets come along, we'll probably have to file another report if the new users aren't blocked yet. But I think there are a few admins that are aware of the situation and so some of them are blocking the accounts on sight. AngelOfSadness talk 19:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And now here's another. Blocked for vandalism after these edits. AngelOfSadness talk 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, old boy[edit]

've gotten myself involved in the social neworking nonsense now. It's a long story. Anyway, I posted a "blog", as they are called on there, criticizing certain aspects of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai lama. Suddenly I find myself getting hammered by the Dawkins anti-theist cultists on one side and some theosophiscal gibberish-mongers on the other. My original purpose was to expose the hyprocricy of a certain young lady who claimed to be a skeptical naturalist type, but promoted Buddhism and the DL on her front page. If you ever get bored, come on over <a href=""> there </a> and post a comment on a comment or something.

Yes, I was a little hard on the bastard, but I'm am damned contrarian and I got sick and tired of Christian and Muslism-----no, JUST Christian bashing really---and thought I would provoke some thought about another religion with some weird and non-scientific stuff going. This was the true intent. Now I'm getting called a relgious bigot by the Sam Harris folks, and an ignoramus about Buddhism by the theosophical chap. What NONSENSE.

--Francesco Franco ([[User ta--Francesco Franco (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)lk:Lacatosias|talk]]) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to make an account, nut that takes about a minute or so.


Hi Ed! Sorry about the delay in replying to your message on my talk page, I've been super busy (in real life). You're right, LoveMonkey is completely in the wrong about mixing the two different definitions of Libertarianism. However that was some time ago - what is the situation now, has he accepted his error? Best regards, ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis[edit]

I removed "omnivorous" because it seemed to me to be intended to imply that H.sapiens is not omnivorous. Maybe I'm just overly alert for militant vegetarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

About my synaesthesia[edit]

I think it would be more convenient to talk via email (write to drobnik @ onet . pl). (JotDee (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

I switch sides......let the science prevail!![edit]

It's the real REALNESS of the higher HIGHNESS, baby! Consciousness is emergence, emergence is consciousness. KEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL!! Enough, I'm moving toward reductionism. Kim is right, all this other shit just leads to either mystical nonsense or epiphenomenalism. After 15 years of a priori and self-contradictory non-reductive "emergence", I am proud to declare that I am now a true reductive physicalist. Kim is right!!--Francesco Franco (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!! =[edit]

Edward Hubbard, what the heck happened to you? Look, I know you're still around here somewhere old boy.I just wanted your scientifically informed opinion about this recent "sensational" viral video that has been traversing the webs. In a nutshell, the neuroscientist, Jill Bolte Taylor, had a stroke and experienced some bizarre sensations of universal oneness with the toilet, the people in the world, and so on. (Actually, as am aside, I have these sorts of experiences all the time, but whenever I even beging to describe such things to the MDs, they usually try putting me on Haldol or shock therapy or something, for christ's sake!! And rightly SO!!) Anyway, the nut....I mean neuroscientist Taylor claims that her experiences show that we are all connected like the great ONE of Parmenides and Madame Blavatsky, etc.. Take a look at the video when you have some time, or just take my word for the basics, and let me know what you think as a colleague of this lady. Does not her (implicit) argument from her personal experience to ontological/metaphysical conclusions remind you of those who claim that god exists because they have felt his existence in experience. <a href=""> Bolt Taylor goes into altered state and says that she has found truth </a> Hm.....reminds me, too, of the nutty Aldous Huxley and the doors of perception. "Your brain was in warped, defective state, old boy, you saw nonsense and experienced a DISTORTED reality!! That's why they are called mind-altering drugs. "

--Francesco Franco (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis[edit]

I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Edhubbard. I thought that everybody can see that the sections I asked to expand are extremely short and shallow and that everybody must admit that a similar expansion (together with previous changes made during the last two years) needs a review. Originally I also thought you would help to solve the problems, but a while ago I noticed at the archive of the Joel's talk page that you decided to try an easier way. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for the copyedits of my contributions, because they need them, and for your effort to find the refs. I also want to explain that I did not start this FAR just because of the questions I raised at the H. f. talk page, but because I finally came to the conclusion that the problems are deeper. I have never experienced FAR before but I saw some FA nominations which resulted into significant improvements thanks to reviews of editors independent of the authors and I thought this would be the same. Unfortunately the FAR is probably much less attractive to wiki editors than FA nomination. But I still think that it would help the article, after all the changes which were or are going to be made, if somebody did an independent and thourough review. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ed. Nice work, I am lousy at hunting these things out. Re: your talk page commment: the answers would be yes, perhaps, and my edit. I have no reason to suppose (or presuppose) that you meant any slight in naming me on the talk, but others, perhaps less thoughtful, may take the opportunity to personalise what is a controversy outside of our document. The action and the user responsible is evident from the diff, but the fact that I made the edit is not pertinent; it was not a spontaneous or unilateral action, nor am I well known (AFAIK) for making such edits. I would greatly appreciate a refactoring of your finding. There was an 'archive' made on the talk page that may provide some illumination, and I am happy to link or release the related discussions on the matter. Best regards, cygnis insignis 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Snap! :) cygnis insignis 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't bother - I may have been oversensitive. Perhaps you might reflect on whether my view on naming the edit, rather than the editor, has merit in facilitating discussions in the future. I do think that pulling the section from the archive is worthwhile, particularly as it is on FAR. I have pondered whether it should have the status of FA, given that it is unresolved, controversial and therefore unstable. We should avoid being a nomenclator, and there is a great risk of that; compressing the explanation into data in an infobox (the taxobox) is likely to mislead our readers. Regards, cygnis insignis 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
..., but thank you for the gesture :) cygnis insignis 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither could I! The link is here, which is tucked into the templates at the top of the page. I found it by placing "Talk:Homo_floresiensis" in our search, you can also find 'hidden pages' by using this. Cheers, cygnis insignis 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, it was a malformed statement: because of the ongoing controversy, in the media and elsewhere, the article has been unstable. Facts have been added that do not necessarily accord with the article as a whole, uncited statements have crept in that give undue weight to any acceptance or protest, and the necessary and strict adherence to NPOV is, perhaps, slightly lacking. I also thought about the name as title, toyed with the idea of suggesting a move to Homo Floresiensis, but eventually decided that any "proposed species" can be named and explained without suggesting it is valid. There are a number of taxa, though a great deal less sensational, that have their name in the title; the explanation in the text covers the lack of a taxobox in those articles. cygnis insignis 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and I'm a newbie at this code[edit]

Hi Ed: I finally put up my Wiki page after having it on my to-do list for TWO YEARS. Takes some getting used to this code and guidelines. I just discovered the "history" tab, and see you've been editing the synesthesia page. I didn't know about the YouTube copyright thing, so thanks for taking that down. But how is putting up a lecture that I had filmed myself a violation?

Likewise, I'm now getting warnings that I'm not supposed to do my own page because it's a "conflict of interest" (I see you got a warning too). This seems odd, because all the syn guys have done their own. Suggestions? Guidance? Maybe it will come down to us trading code: I'll do you and you do me sort of thing.

Anyway, glad I'm here. I'll be wading my way through this for a while till I get the hang of it. It was actually fun paring down the syn page (there was a warning that it was too long). I see now I should have annotated the sections. Ah well, next time. Hope you are well.Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for rounding out "The Man Who" page, Ed. Not sure why User:shirt58 put up the British edition, which is out of print. I've uploaded the MIT cover, Shape-MIT.jpg. I'll put the pub details in a book infobox on The Man Who Tasted Shape's talk page. Again, I appreciate all your effort Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


No worries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Didn't mean for the Tim Russert page to look like vandalism. Sorry about the confusion. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was, Keith must've really felt he owed Russert homage to make it the anniversary of his death his number 1 (I think) story, most news reporters wouldn't usually report on anyone's death after the fact. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: your bear userbox[edit]

I saw your bear userbox on your you happen to know of one about ducks? One that says "ducks are godless disgusting perverted creatures borne from the pit of hell?" Because it's totally true; everyone knows it. Auntie E (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Apperception.[edit]

FYI, since you know more about this dispute that I do. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki editing[edit]

Hi Ed, good to hear from you. I haven't been an active editor for years due in some part to the emotional strain of engaging in anonymous debates. I left quietly, without grandstanding, because I still had faith in the democratic mission of Wikipedia.

However, just recently, I was cited as an enabler of illegitimate power relations in an academic paper due to my attempt a few years ago to mediate disputes on the Free Will article between FF and a newer user. (See the post above yours on my wall.)

I can't help but feel that this place is the embodiment of all the worst things about academia, which is itself rampant with its own tragic vices. So I probably won't be able to help. Good luck. { Ben S. Nelson } 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User-page warnings[edit]

Regarding User talk:, users (even anons) are allowed to remove warnings and old blocks but not ISP-info and similar tags. See WP:USERTALK for more info. DMacks (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (BASHAMA (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

User: Goodmanman was trying to be a good editor and have you guys provide a source, but you took it a little too far. He was only trying to help...Watch it next time.(BASHAMA (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Ahh...sorry i didn't realize i was adding the old system for nascar...sorry about that...stupid me —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention article[edit]

Please enter discussion at User_talk:Penbat#Attention --Penbat (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Neuroscience and the question of free will[edit]

Thanks for the move! I think that was a great idea, and I agree that the summary will be short, especially considering I'm going to add a bunch of the most up to date articles to the Determined Will main article. I hope you'll support my idea of using THAT page rather than Neuroscience of Not Having Free Will. If it is agreed that the names are equivalent, then the difference is that this content, and the content I will add, discusses a Determined Will. And if we have Determined Will, people should know about it. And for people to know about it, it needs to have a name besides "not free will". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talkcontribs) 05:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there are still some "determined will" pages I cannot delete, but they are redundant if we are going to stick to the Neuroscience of free will page.Tesseract2 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page Richard Dawkins, without explaining why in an edit summary. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you.(Huey45 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Richard Dawkins appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.(Huey45 (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Huey45 - WP:DTTR. You may also want to do a google scholar search on this user's name. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cytowic image[edit]

Ed, I believe I am inadvertently responsible for the recent changes to Richard Cytowic's image. See this thread at WP:AN. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DC, no problem. I'll strike my "drive-by" comment from the talk, since now I see that it was motivated by a bigger discussion of vanity bio. Actually, that's an interesting thought. Perhaps we can get people on the WP:BIO project to weigh in on the image thing. I don't feel like it's inappropriate, but more opinions might make things clearer. As a previous contributor to the Richard Cytowic page, you might also want to give your opinion on the image, but if you feel like commenting on the image would confuse the issues you were bringing up in the original conversation on WP:AN, feel free to sit it out, too. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of cognition[edit]

I have three issues with your definition. One is the use of "mind" rather than "brain", the second is the narrow scope (regarding "intelligence"), and the third is insistence that cognitive science studies machines.

The use of "mind", I can maybe accept - some people are opposed to talking about brains unless neurotransmitters are involved - but it sounds terribly dated.

I feel more strongly that we really ought to move to a broader scope, for instance making readers aware that cognitive science also studies emotion. The "cognitive" doesn't just mean thinking about abstract things.

I accept that cogsci studies machines in the sense that robots and computational models running on machines are used to model cognition, or even in the sense that astronomers study telescopes (with apologies to E W Dijkstra), but I fail to see how cognitive science studies machines in their own right. How would that differ from computer science or electrical engineering? You argue that AI "is part of" cogsci. I would argue that part of it is part of CogSci. Similarly not all philosophy is a proper subset of cogsci. Now it could be that you mean some cognitive scientists wonder, e.g., whether a machine can be conscious. I agree, they do. But this, I would argue is not the sort of thing that should hit readers on the first sentence of a definition to cognitive science.

--Andy Fugard (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is useful to move things forward --Andy Fugard (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For being an unflinchingly productive editor Tesseract2(talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

University help[edit]

Hey I go to a university that is creating Wikipedia pages as a project and we need to find 2 people in our related field to review our article for improvements. Can you look over mine? It'd be much appreciated. I can send you the link if you're interested. OneThousandTwentyFour (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Free will[edit]

As a past contributor to Free will, you might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:JimmieJohnson2007NewYorkParade.jpg[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimmieJohnson2007NewYorkParade.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SteenVision.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SteenVision.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:48-24atSonyHD500CaliforniaSpeedway.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:48-24atSonyHD500CaliforniaSpeedway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)