Hello, Craig Weiler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Vzaak (
talk)
21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Barney the barney barneyAre you the one who doesn't like their name highlighted? I can't remember who that was and if it was you I apologize in advance.
I have quite a bit of expertise in the areas you've just mentioned, 1 through 4. On point #1 I agree that people engaged in harmful, devious or immoral behavior should be called out. #2 It is OK to be disrespectful of expert opinion provided it can be demonstrated that the opinion is not based on a solid factual foundation, or worse, the expert is clearly biased. #3 Science is a process, not a set of conclusions. There is a great deal of uncertainty and scientific theories can change rapidly with new information. No one knows how you get from brain function to consciousness; no one has the slightest idea what consciousness is; no one understands the observer effect and according to Bell's Theorem, the universe must be non local for quantum physics to work.
Until these things get sorted out, you can't really take one position or the other. The problems are just too fundamental. Public understanding is best served by highlighting these uncertainties and reminding people that we have to remain open to the possibility that new unconventional theories may overtake old ones. #4 I have had a great deal of contact with mental health professionals over the years relating to discussions of this kind. Based upon what I've seen so far, skeptics, such as yourself, do not seem qualified to talk on this subject. I can only suggest that you tread very lightly on this subject because what you think might be helpful to mentally ill people might be completely wrong.
The history of CSICOP pretty much speaks for itself. Are you interested in learning about that? Craig Weiler ( talk) 17:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The WP:REALNAME policy is just common sense, and similar policies can be found on other sites. That the policy exists does not imply that it addresses a rampant problem. The policy would still be there even if not one case of impersonation ever happened. Wikipedians wish to protect real-life identities, and their efforts to do so can nowise be held against them. I regret that my attempt to help here has resulted in all these negative speculations. vzaak ( talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Bringing an indefinitely blocked users off wiki comments into article discussions [1] as you did here, falls under WP:MEAT and should be avoided if you wish to continue to be able to edit on your own.
If you think they have legitimate grievances, you may bring them to the attention of the appropriate notice boards, but otherwise you are just trolling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You posted the statement in multiple places and now after being warned about being a mouthpiece for a blocked user you continue to WP:SOAPBOX for him like this [2] by advocating for WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality off Wiki as well as spamming your blog page to do so.
Consider this your final warning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of DoomI am not his mouthpiece. I don't speak for him, I speak for myself. Are you saying I should only post messages like that on my own talk page? Craig Weiler ( talk) 03:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Craig Weiler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Vzaak (
talk)
21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Barney the barney barneyAre you the one who doesn't like their name highlighted? I can't remember who that was and if it was you I apologize in advance.
I have quite a bit of expertise in the areas you've just mentioned, 1 through 4. On point #1 I agree that people engaged in harmful, devious or immoral behavior should be called out. #2 It is OK to be disrespectful of expert opinion provided it can be demonstrated that the opinion is not based on a solid factual foundation, or worse, the expert is clearly biased. #3 Science is a process, not a set of conclusions. There is a great deal of uncertainty and scientific theories can change rapidly with new information. No one knows how you get from brain function to consciousness; no one has the slightest idea what consciousness is; no one understands the observer effect and according to Bell's Theorem, the universe must be non local for quantum physics to work.
Until these things get sorted out, you can't really take one position or the other. The problems are just too fundamental. Public understanding is best served by highlighting these uncertainties and reminding people that we have to remain open to the possibility that new unconventional theories may overtake old ones. #4 I have had a great deal of contact with mental health professionals over the years relating to discussions of this kind. Based upon what I've seen so far, skeptics, such as yourself, do not seem qualified to talk on this subject. I can only suggest that you tread very lightly on this subject because what you think might be helpful to mentally ill people might be completely wrong.
The history of CSICOP pretty much speaks for itself. Are you interested in learning about that? Craig Weiler ( talk) 17:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The WP:REALNAME policy is just common sense, and similar policies can be found on other sites. That the policy exists does not imply that it addresses a rampant problem. The policy would still be there even if not one case of impersonation ever happened. Wikipedians wish to protect real-life identities, and their efforts to do so can nowise be held against them. I regret that my attempt to help here has resulted in all these negative speculations. vzaak ( talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Bringing an indefinitely blocked users off wiki comments into article discussions [1] as you did here, falls under WP:MEAT and should be avoided if you wish to continue to be able to edit on your own.
If you think they have legitimate grievances, you may bring them to the attention of the appropriate notice boards, but otherwise you are just trolling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You posted the statement in multiple places and now after being warned about being a mouthpiece for a blocked user you continue to WP:SOAPBOX for him like this [2] by advocating for WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality off Wiki as well as spamming your blog page to do so.
Consider this your final warning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of DoomI am not his mouthpiece. I don't speak for him, I speak for myself. Are you saying I should only post messages like that on my own talk page? Craig Weiler ( talk) 03:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)