Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 6 August 2010

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page–my talk page–as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Thank you!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Click here to watch this page.

Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin

I noticed you did a bit of work on Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin. I recently reverted some vandalism from a year ago, but the resulting section doesn't integrate that well with what is there. I've noted this here, but am looking for someone who might have time to fix this (if I can't find anyone, I'll move the rescued section to the talk page). Would you be interested in having a look? Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I've looked at the history, and your changes in particular. I saw only one line of vandalism and the deletion of some text. Your changes look perfect to me. Please be more specific about "...needs work to reintegrate it into the article," because I have no idea what the problem is. The original text (which was restored by your changes) looks fine to me. I agree that many of the statements need sourcing, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to know what the sources might be. In this case, I wouldn't trust Web searches to turn up good sources. Physical books would more likely contain reliable information. I'm sure the article as it stands contains minor errors and is incomplete, but that's the nature of WP--it's always improving. David Spector (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure at least one other person thought it was OK, as it felt a bit strange to be restoring a section from a year ago. Thanks for looking. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I wrote that section, and the deletion was apparently done with no discussion, and you have some reservation about the section as it stands, someone else should be asked to review it. I don't know the WP mechanism for doing this. David Spector (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that section? We might be misunderstanding each other here. The wording of parts of that section is present in very early versions of the article, dating back 7 years. See here for example (that is the fifth edit to the article, in 2003). My concern is that the section was removed by a vandal and was missing for a year. The article was extensively edited during that year, so re-adding the section as I have done felt wrong, so I was hoping someone could take the missing section and integrate with the work done over the past year (which seems to have been a mixture of people). Still, I'll copy this to the article talk page and ask someone else to look at it (the editor from 2003 is still here, for example) if you think that is best. Apologies for any misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the misunderstanding was mine. I probably didn't look closely enough at the edits. Since my time is currently limited, go ahead and ask someone else. Thanks for your attention to this. David Spector (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

TM and Hinduism

• One minor correction to "It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science..." I believe only two of the current editors have this POV (judging from this Talk page; the others left months ago). Their relatively uninformed POV, relying as it does on sources (like the otherwise wonderful Carl Sagan) who express authoritative-sounding opinions that are not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter, irritates me as well.

I assume you include me in the unnamed "current editors" you refer to in that comment. I have argued to retain the very short comment by Sagan because it's a significant point of view. However I've searched the archives of the talk page and cannot find any occasion in which I've expressed an opinion on the matter itself. If I've overlooked some place where I've said something directly about the connection of TM and Hinduism then I can't find it. Can you? Which of us is wrong?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm wrong. I'm so used to you opposing anything the pro-TMers do that I assumed you'd agree that TM is Hinduism and pseudoscience (as if anything can be both!). WP works, but it is quite counterintuitive as to how, since it so firmly prefers ad hominem (famous people as reliable sources outside of their specialty--as if!) over truth. David Spector (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Primus Telecommunications

I only know what I read, and what I read is that Primus is a TMM-associated company. Here's its offices in Fairfield. Google "Primus Telecommunications" and "Maharishi" or "Transcendental Meditation" if you want more sources. There's lots of them. Fladrif (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's more than one company with the same name? This one's in Canada. But it does seem a strange coincidence, being that this person seems to have TMM expertise. David Spector (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same company. They bought out Telegroup, which was co-founded by Fred Gratzon, and apparently still have strong ties to Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In which case, it may be one of the current pro-TM editors, which could mean that the person is too cowardly to stand behind their statements. But then that already applies to the majority of editors, whose accounts are not in their names and whose User pages do not contain their names. It is unclear why anonymity would create a better encyclopedia. I would think it fosters contention, trolling, argumentation, and certainly vandalism. WP is too big and too good to tolerate its current difficult editing environment. I hope this changes someday. David Spector (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise against reading too much into this. It could mean something or it could mean nothing. There are probably over a million Primus subscribers (there were that many 10 years ago) so it's possibly just a coincidence. More of a concern is the actual behavior of the editor.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree, primarily because of the anonymity, but the actual criticism of that part of the article was excellent. I don't at all mind POVs or cogent analysis on Talk pages. In any case, all the current and past editors share blame for producing such a confusing (although certainly well-sourced) set of articles. The permitted inclusion of ad hominem statements by people who are experts in other fields is a particularly egregious failing of WP itself. David Spector (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I feel it necessary to apologize for TreasuryTag's behavior in this thread. He's a ... "toxic personality" who has been giving more and more indications that he needs to be re-banned. His behavior in that thread was absolutely unacceptable. The topic of e-mail notifications has come up previously and it was ripe for a fresh look. I added my support to your proposal and I hope to see the feature enabled in the near future. (Though, on that note, I wouldn't hold my breath. Wikimedia development has slowed to a crawl in most areas.) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Great suggestion. Anthony (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is so kind to apologize for the bad behavior of an editor. We need more kindness here at WP. Thank you both for agreeing with the value of change notifications for those of us who are not on WP all the time, and for seeing that it is optional (I guess people don't read carefully; that might interfere with composing their well-written complaints). I've found it impossible to get any WP programming changes. I think WP management feels that the WP software is good enough at this point, so there is no reason to adopt any suggestions that require spending money for programming. David Spector (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors

David, don't you see any irony in commenting about how rude someone is and discussing their psychological problems in the same passage? Would you like us to discuss our opinions of your psychological conditions? My guess is that doing so would not further the project to any degree.

As for Edith Sirius Lee, there was a very similar editor here who went by a succession of names.User:Lumiere/User:Étincelle/user:-Lumière. The latter account was the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/-Lumière. However, ESL denies being that particular editor. WP:SOCK says: "Misusing a clean start: Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy." Like you, other editors are also wondering what the old account of the new editor was.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I Will Be Back, no, actually I see neither irony nor malice in my speculating on psychological motivations of an editor. I believe you, too, have wondered about Fladrif's behavior and perhaps have speculated privately as to causes.

An alcoholic, who has a disease of addiction he/she themself does not recognize as a disease, or even a problem, will generally continue worsening until severe damage, including death, is done to themself or to others. This is why those who work with alcoholics recommend that loved ones and friends give feedback to the person, even if the feedback is ignored.

For example, the wife of an alcoholic may decide to be assertive to protect herself by leaving the husband. Some call this 'tough love', but it is actually better described as allowing the alcoholic to feel the results of his/her disease rather than being protected or shielded from them.

Another common example frequently recommended by experts is the 'intervention' by family and friends. This is a loving but firm feedback of how the alcoholic has affected others. An intervention for Fladrif would be a great idea, if there are enough of us who see its potential value for him/her and for WP.

While I don't pretend to be a therapist or a loved one of Fladrif, I do consider myself a friend (yes, it is possible to be a friend even to a wild animal). There are parts of his/her behavior that are quite endearing, even though difficult to find amidst his/her almost-constant negativity.

I would rather not leave him alone to continue his obnoxious behavior toward those he evidently classes as his enemies (you, fortunately, are not one of them, at least so far). 'Calling him/her out' for his/her behavior in private rather than in public would seem to be more discreet, but I believe it is less effective. I hope you and others who understand the value of standing up to a bully and helping him/her to change will join courageously with me in resisting his/her destructive game. If we could eventually get through to him (which I believe is a real possibility), we would further the TMM project enormously, as well as helping Fladrif personally. Just imagine a Fladrif who is polite, willing to admit to making mistakes, more concerned to contribute in a quality way than to criticize others. The project would most certainly benefit!

Concerning you and others discussing my flaws and how they could be reduced, I would very much welcome this. Free advice like this is invaluable (psychologists are very expensive). You may think me egoistic because I speak my mind, but at least I am willing to face my flaws and their consequences without reservation. That is actually part of my path towards fulfilling my life so I can help everyone in the world with strength, happiness, and compassion just as I currently do my Natural Stress Relief clients (see www.nsrusa.org/testimonials.php).

I invite you and any others you can interest in participating (regardless of POV about TM) to enter into constructive criticism of and for me here on my Talk page; if there's enough interest I'll move it to a subpage of its own. Trust me, I have changed a lot in my life and I am very open to further change. Feedback from others is welcome.

Concerning sockpuppetry, I see this as a fundamental flaw in WP. Founding it with a mixture of advantageous and disadvantageous principles was understandable; letting it get out of hand and not fixing it is quite another. Permitting anonymity (except for IP address) allows for more vandalism, for making any statements without personally standing behind them, and sockpuppetry. Sticking to this poor principle leads to kludges like Pending Changes, with its insane idea of allowing editors to be Reviewers who decide whether a logged-out contributor's edits can be included in WP.

Isn't it obvious that requiring login and honesty in a required User page (profile) would reduce many of the problems that plague WP and use up valuable editing time? It would also provide information that could help track down sockpuppets.

Of course, other mechanisms would work even better: mechanisms such as a confidential piece of information that almost absolutely identifies a person (automatic verification by telephone, signature, verification of driver's license or other photo ID by a Notary Public, address verification by a person sending snail mail to him/herself then mailing the envelope to WP, and so on).

Solutions to the fundamental WP problem caused by anonymity are so easy and plentiful, yet they are avoided like the plague--like the very plague of sockpuppetry, vandalism, and edit wars that such solutions would largely prevent.

There are online encyclopedias that copy and improve upon WP's content, whose main difference is that anonymous users are not permitted. What a lot of work to get around an unreasonable policy. Asking people to register to edit a famous and popular encyclopedia should be an obvious requirement.

Currently, there is no reliable way to prove or even detect sockpuppetry. Thus, troublesome editors can return as many times as they wish, even despite severe sanctions.

I'm not saying that this particular editor is a sockpuppet, or that he/she has been or is now troublesome to others or to WP. I'm only pointing out that, until WP policies improve, there's not much point in worrying about things we cannot detect or fix. Until editors think more deeply, we have to live with all of WP's policies, even the wrong-headed ones. David Spector (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)