Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:55, 20 February 2006

I just wanted to welcome you to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Misplaced Pages at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Natasha Demkina

In reply to your comments: "So I'm confused: a Wiki administrator said that 'seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Misplaced Pages at its best.' Now I'm being told that this is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies. Who's right about this? And by the way, shouldn't the validity and accuracy of the information added to Misplaced Pages be more important than the authorship of that information?"

First of all, writing about subjects in which you are closely involved is not currently a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, but Misplaced Pages:Autobiography is a guideline that discourages it. My own opinion, which probably differs from that of Arcadian, is that if someone stumbles across a Misplaced Pages article for which he or she is a primary source of information, it is usually appropriate that he or she should post suggestions for additions, removals, or changes in the Talk page and draw them to the attention of others.

Secondly, of course the validity and accuracy of information is more important that the authorship of that information, but you seem to suggest that it is self-evident that the information you have contributed to the article is valid and accurate. I reject this premise, and it is apparent that JS does, too. Clearly there is a degree of subjectivity involved when someone edits an article in which they are closely involved or are a primary source of information. Edwardian 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was actually aimed at the problem of letting someone who repeatedly posts falsehoods -- to advance his stated "activist" agenda aimed at discrediting skeptics -- as appears to be happening. Julio Sequeira will not quit. If you give him a forum he will post one falsehood after another and when someone tries to correct them, he comes up with twelve more. His latest game with the number of test cards and his accusation that I lied when I told you that the appendix and esophagus can be viewed with the right x-ray procedures are perfect examples. I've played his game too much and too long and I'm sick of it. It's like debating with Creationists. They lie and cheat and, when doing it in front of people who don't know better, they often win the debate.

Tell you what, Edwardian, if you can find a single falsehood I ever added to the Misplaced Pages entry as Siqueria has repeatedly, I will shut up and go away.

On a more positive note, I think the changes you've already made are excellent -- with the exception of one. I think it is inappropriate for the entry to be singling out one side to be labeled as "highly respected." Brian Josephson may be highly respected by people who like him believe Uri Geller is a real psychic, not a charlatan, but he is widely lambasted by many scientists and others who know what he does. What's more, I would argue that I am highly respected. I may not have a Nobel prize but I have numerous other tokens of honor including a Pulitzer prize nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a Rosalyn Carter Fellowship in Mental Health Journalism, an Amnesty International "Spotlight on Media" Award, and other honors. However, I prefer that you just leave out such unnecessary and biased irrelevancies. Having won a Nobel prize 33 years ago for his discoveries in quantum tunneling phenomenon. When it comes to understanding and communicating medical science, I have many more awards then Josephson. So, I really think you should remove such references or else add a whole bunch for me and Prof. Hyman.

Likewise, I think you should remove the "Nobel Prize winner" from the reference section. That really is inappropriate. So too is that little biography added after Siqueria's name in the external links.

Thanks for your obviously high tolerance of pain and suffering...

Andrew Askolnick 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few premises in your introductory sentence that need to be checked. The first is that it is self-evident to others that someone is repeatedly posting falsehoods. The second is that Wikipedians, of which you are now one, are "letting" that happen. I really don’t think it is reasonable for you to insist upon your own objectivity, call someone else a liar, then expect an administrator or another editor to simply take your word for it and revert his edits. If you dispute the accuracy of a particular statement or section, you do have a few other options at your disposal:

1. Do nothing.
2. Briefly explain on the Talk page why you think it is inaccurate and bring it, and suggested changes, to the attention of impartial editors.
3. As you did before, change it to what you think is accurate.

Regarding your request to “find a single falsehood”, it is not your honesty I dispute but your objectivity in contributing to this particular encyclopedia article. For example, you inserted “Demkina also made some diagnoses of one of the researchers, Andrew Skolnick, which were both incorrect and likely based on normal, non-supernatural observations” without explicitly mentioning the citation for this information... you.

Regarding your concern over my changes, please note that it was not I who added the credentials for Josephson or anyone else for that matter. Frankly, this article is supposed to be about Natasha Demkina and not the credentials of the researchers or the researchers’ skeptics. Whatever inaccuracies remain in the article are not my doing nor or they my responsibility to fix. We all have to pick and choose our battles and this is one from which I am withdrawing.

I know, and I did not mean to imply that you did. I meant my comment only as a protest that you did not take that nonsense out when you made the editing changes. We certainly agree. The article should not be about the bios and credentials of anyone but the subject of the entry.

When I found myself in an editing war with Siqueira, I ceased deleting his changes and appealed to Wiki administrators to intervene, because I saw no good that could come from an unmoderated battle and I'd prefer the decisions to remove material be made by independant parties. But, seeing that that's not going to happen in a more timely fashion, I'm going to take your advice and make the changes myself, adding a brief explanation to explain each. I just hope it's not going to bring an even bigger flame war here. Thanks very much for your help and for your advice. Wish me luck. Askolnick 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but protesting about the resolution process wasting your time was the straw that broke my back. I don’t have the time to wade through paragraph after paragraph of two people attempting to convince me that the other is a liar while they avoid discussing the article. If you are convinced of your own objectivity, I would suggest that you stand by your guns and keep changing the article to what you think is accurate. Edwardian 06:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardian's theoretical principles (except perhaps his steadfastness to the WP:AUTO guideline), but not how he puts them into practice. I'd been hoping that WP:RFC would attract someone knowledgeable in the subject area. Frankly, even someone who'd seen the TGWXRE program would have been more qualified than myself.

I don't think that poring over the frustrated and sometimes caustic arguing between you and JS is fruitful. I don't know why anyone would think that. Certainly the unbridled discussion between you two was going to be heated. That should go without saying. I made it a point to avoid milling over all that, and focus on the article and the ways to resolve the dispute within WP. I've had enough experience with open communities to have learned that most people not familiar with such communities tend to be dissatisfied with the speed and/or efficacy of their methods. (This is why in the US there is such a conflict between those who want a fair, flexible process and those who want a fast, terminal process in government.)

In the end, though, I found it a lot more effective to go over both of your contributions to date and compile them with WP:NPOV as the goal (as well as maximization of noteworthy information) and generate the consensus myself. This is not what I wanted to do, as I'd only intended to be involved to aid the dispute resolution process, not become part of it.

Anyway, please review the current version of Natasha Demkina and my comments on the talk page. Note that the article is currently protected, forcing any amendments to be proposed elsewhere. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

About an IP 64.65.247.81

IP User:64.65.247.81 made a large number of stylistic edits to your comment on the village pump None of these changed the meaning of what you said, but they did fix some grammatical errors. Is that you when you weren't signed in? I have not reverted the edit. — Ambush Commander 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ambush, that's the IP from my office computer. I forgot to log back in. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. (Nice to have someone watching your back :-)

Askolnick 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Are you still willing to take mediation? Dan100 (Talk) 10:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Let me think about this and give you an answer later this day. I'm not optimistic about the effectiveness of the Wiki way of settling disputes between those who say 2+2=4 and those that insist the sum must equal 5 because they say so. Splitting the difference and calling it 4.5 is not my idea of good scholarship.

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief over the persistance of one Wiki "statistician" who is still insisting that scientists cannot use a lower P value than 0.05 for the level of statistical significance -- despite my pointing out to him that the Wiki entry for statistical significance -- which he cited in support of his opinion -- says that researchers can.

My experience here has certainly been enlightening. Not pleasant, but enlightening.

Let me consider. Andrew Askolnick 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Demkina

Our edits clashed: I was editing the article while you placed your new notice. Perhaps you would like to review the article now. Best regards, --BillC 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TM edits

Thank for your edits on the Transcendental Meditation page. Please feel free to hang around and participate more. Sethie 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. However, I'm afraid if I do, a very unpleasant flame war may erupt. I fear "Lumiere" and I have a rather bitter history. She's an apologist and I'm a science journalist. Oil and water, you know -- or more like oil and an open flame...

But I will make a few little improvements re my own contributions to knowledge base of TM. Also, I may like to add something about how the TM movement claimed credit for steering Hurricane Gilbert away from Texas (sending it smashing into those poor Mexicans) by having a bunch of Yogic Flyers hop on their bums. (No kidding, the movement put out a press release making that claim.) Too bad they didn't "rise off their bums" and save New Orleans from Katrina...  :-)

Me and you, I think it is more like water and open flame :-) -Lumiere.

Troll

If you think that a party isn't arguing in good faith, or is basically making up things to support their argument, there is a point at which it no longer is valuable to respond to them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. For this edit Lumière