Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 15 January 2019 (→January 2019: Copy/pasted from Misplaced Pages:Teahouse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I noticed that in this edit to Technological unemployment, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to Technological unemployment. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

A re-organization of information would be of help, since some parts in History suddenly talk about 'studies' and policy. My aim was to change organization with same information.

January 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Abiogenesis seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abiogenesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Abiogenesis. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Tgeorgescu have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" are against Misplaced Pages policy and not permitted; Misplaced Pages articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Misplaced Pages, please note that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Abiogenesis. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Please refrain from accusing me based on false claims and wrong assumptions. I have only exerted my right to express myself here, and I will continue to do so. If you keep accusing me with those limited "wikicodes", in wrong assumptions and false claims, I will have no other choice but to conclude that you falsely accuse anyone who simply challenges your beliefs by stating & defending a different opinion.

You've again mistaken Misplaced Pages for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary.

For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected.

You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola.

In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them.

In a nutshell - its OK for Misplaced Pages to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.

Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning, next stop is WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Did Edaham wrote that? Or was it copied by Tgeorgescu. Edaham, my content was not considered "ad nauseam", but never read in the first place. Allow me one question: Why you keep saying I modify the article? I have not modified the Abiogenesis article since I began these talks. Why you keep accusing me of that? I have not modified the article. Yes I have engaged in a debate with some here. But I thought that is why the "Talk" is there for. Now, perhaps they don't like my argument, they cannot debate it on real argumentative grounds (Edahman seemed to do the same, when he/she mistake defending an argument based on what is a duty and/or a right, with the sale of a product like coca-cola, and state the word "again" when it has no real measure of events re-occurring so they have to call a "wikicode" on SOAPBOX? Is funny, but then, I suggest, put the article on lock and then ask for anyone who want to change it to state the kind of change it will make... That way, at least I feel people can see better how this "non-democracy" of[REDACTED] (which is supposed to be fair and unbiased, and allow dissenting expressions) work.

Misplaced Pages has a bias. It's biased towards academic sources, it's biased against fringe sources and claims. It's certainly not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia with articles that should be based on reliable sources, and we have criteria for those. I'm glad to see you are using the talk page now. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

But, Mr or Ms. Doug Weller, respectfully, you state about "bias" as if the problem is never unjustified claims that have no real justification, when often, many editors here take a reference from academia and make an unjustified and exacerbated claim from it, and then post the reference, as if that justified the mistake, but no, it doesn't justify that mistake, because some sources really don't say as much as the editors claim they say in the article, they don't imply what it is said to imply, the implications come from unjustified assumptions or "faith" in an uncertain issue (not always from scientific rigor or rational analysis). Some use words in the article in ways that hide limitations of assumptions. Is not that Misplaced Pages is biased toward scientifically reliable sources and quality evidence, it is that it allows bias on radical positions, as pro or anti-god, and that IS NOT THE JOB OF ANY EDITOR, editors shouldn't try to make it an article in a "style" that favors a lack of belief in god (or a pro-belief in god, for that matter). That is the biased way I am referring to, the framing and play on words (unjustified, by the sincerity virtue/rule, even with proper sources).

I appreciate that you limit your complaints to your Talk page. In harmony, I want to share that your underlying mistake is that you do not understand the scientific method. Science looked into magic, and godly magic -or any magic for that matter- has never been shown to exist, so magic/miracles is not an option to factor into the nature of things when seeking evidence-based answers. While religion is a topic to entertain in a philosophical context, it always failed under the scientific method, so it is no longer a factor to consider when using the scientific method. Please realize that a science article cannot present religious faith (magic/creationism) as an equal and alternative mechanism, and this is not because Misplaced Pages or scientists are "afraid of god" as you claim, but because such paranormal force has never been observed, never mind measured and studied. Regarding your complaints about spontaneous generation (creation of complex life in a single event within hours), you have to understand that this discarded belief is not the same scientific argument as abiogenesis, which is a gradual process spanning billions of years of step-wise increasing chemical complexity to produce single living cells. The good news for you is that —unlike religion— the scientific method is self-correcting, so if a godly entity shows up and demonstrates its magical skills, then science will review the new facts. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Rowan Forest, let me show you why it is you who is not understanding the meaning of Science and of Abiogenesis in this ocasion, and not understanding the implications of the research done to date in Abiogenesis and, in Cell Biology, in general. "Science looked into magic, and godly magic"... Why do you keep talking about magic? No one here has ever implied, even remotely, that we are the product of magic! Now, let's talk about what you don't understand regarding Pasteur experiments (refuting Spontaneous generation): No one has stated that Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous generation, you are simply doing a straw man tactic when saying that, but, what is important to recognize about those Pasteur experiments is that current evidence doesn't favor a cell coming from non-cell phenomena. What this implies, is that Abiogenesis has THE BURDEN OF PROOF if proponents want it to become a Theory. It is not a given! There is no evidence whatsoever of a cell coming from non-cells... We, as scientists, must have the possibility open, since we cannot be afraid of the truth. Hence, let Abiogenesis research continue, but (and this is the pertinent part) never deceive yourself (or or others, who might read the encyclopedia) into thinking that our current mere hypotheses, suggestive as they are (but nevertheless, inconclusive so far), do signify that we can have a deep evidence-based reason to believe abiogenesis happened! We cannot start with the conclusion or all our methodology will be flawed! (which is what you, and others in this article, are doing)... You are essentially assuming Abiogenesis happened, and that scientist today are simply working on "the minor details of the how and when"... That's not the way to do the Scientific Method! I know you will resort back to your question: "But, what alternative there is?"... Well, It is not our work, as editors of an encyclopedia for the public, to answer that, or, in other words, to cheer for what we feel is what happened, but our job as editors IS to state the sincerity of the facts. Right know, the sincerity of the facts is that we don't know if Abiogenesis is the answer to the question about the rising of life as we know it (I say mystery in a non-assuming way, is not that I root for the guys who say "God did it", is that I want to truly remain neutral; NO one can say for sure, and no one should suggest with play on words that "Science is certain because it has the evidence but just working on the minor details of the how", because, NO, Science hasn't found the evidence it needs to have a fair answer. If you ask the researchers, they will certainly held the belief that it happened, but because they must belief in order to take the research seriously, or else why do it in the first place? I'm glad they are doing the research, because that means we are not afraid of the truth, whatever it is... In order to make you see that your argument about abiogenesis vs. God is simply an argument from lack of imagination, philosophically speaking, let me assure you we can find beliefs that are not the same as magical thinking but that are a plausible alternatives, or at least make abiogenesis more rational when that idea is added as a complement to abiogenesis (not just abiogenesis-by-mere-chance); great minds can imagine philosophical & non-magical notions that engross the idea of a subjective reality not being secondary to materialistic phenomena,you can also imagine it, just imagine such has always existed, like simply stating that physical systems capacity for information processing is fundamental, as matter and energy, it only change form, and that in the 'singularity of the big bang', such system was one, and we are that system, changed... Now, I don't want you to think I am endorsing any of those notions here and that I want you to belief in those notions as the truth, no, no, to put those in the article can be 'fringe ideas', regardless of how really rational the methodology when thinking it was... Do not misunderstand me, I only want that the article explicitly recognize the truth: That we cannot say that Abiogenesis did happened for certain, yet (maybe some day we might, may be never, but not today). The more rational, scientific and sincere to do is to state our ignorance of the matter explicitly and call on the importance of keep doing the science, because we cannot be afraid of the truth (ironically, some scientists are afraid of the "God-like" hypothesis too much, to the point they still stop rational based simply because the tend to combine all such philosophies under "religious feelings").

Hello. Your line of reasoning is that of creation science, which is well established —by schools and by courts of law— to be firmly based on religion. Creation science can never stand side-by-side with science, because their underlying premises and intentions are very different. Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain, but I do not think I can be useful any longer in this talk page. In harmony, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Rowan Forest, your line of reasoning is based on various fallacies, including but not limited to 'petitio principii' (a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises; you insert as the premise that abiogenesis-by-luck is the cause of life, when that is what must be demonstrated and has not been done yet). You also misinterpret "my line of reasoning" as "creation science", when my line of reasoning is simply that it is more sincere and it is the right thing to do to state how lacking in answers current science is with respect to the question of how life emerged (notice that I am not asking that the article includes the idea that God did it, that would be as biased as saying or implying that Abiogenesis happened but we still don't know how, which is what you & the current sentences in the article imply). Your line of reasoning is also based on false dilemma (that we have to choose a side). Not only we don't have to choose a side, we also shouldn't choose a side if the goal is encyclopedia neutrality... State the ideas, state the facts, state what new research directions will be, but state the reality on how answers are still lacking, don't play with words to hide that... Furthermore: Neither courts of law nor schools are the equivalent to scientific validation of any sort of theory of Abiogenesis, so what those schools & courts say is immaterial/irrelevant to the truth in this case, for encyclopedia purposes... Truth is that there is no Abiogenesis theory yet because current evidence is lacking. One additional statement that I must reiterate, but that I don't want it to be mistaken as my intend: To put Abiogenesis vs. Typical Religion as the sole set of possible explanations to choose from is often an argument stemming merely from lack of imagination.

Misplaced Pages is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

We don't deal in WP:THETRUTH. Biology does not care about mind-matter duality, noumena and phenomena or about Bergson's philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Tgeorgescu, the innovation in accepting that Abiogenesis is currently (& still) just hypothesis, and that need the more evidence to make it valid Theory is kind of the new thing, these days, the major scientists studying abiogenesis has been having that brand new though only in recent times, I mean, only since the 80'S you can read objections to the RNA world, the most popular idea behind Abiogenesis, and when they happen, they are minor objections, like:“ has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra”... {Kurland CG; Bioassays 2010 October; 32(10) 866-71} Mr. or Ms. Tgeorgescu: Did you just read those concepts on Misplaced Pages to add them on my talk page? Because no one single concept you mentioned is necessary to know the limitations of current Abiogenesis research (BTW a noumenon is generally used when contrasted with phenomenon, so please, go back to that[REDACTED] page and read it again, or else you are saying that Biology doesn't care about anything at all, not even phenomena related to life). Not one of those concepts was implied, all those concepts (mind-matter duality, Bergson's philosophy, etc.) were weirdly "summoned" by you, and not even one of them is necessary to understand the limitations of current Abiogenesis data, or necessary for a philosophical or scientific point of view that try to study subjective experiences that is neither based on religion nor based on pure materialism. Go see 'Integrated Information Theory' or Roger Penrose ideas on consciousness; read them on Misplaced Pages and please tell us if those guys who made those ideas -Penrose, Tononi, Koch- are talking "science" or not, and check what their education was. If they are not talking science, write to them, tell them "Biology is not interested in their ideas", then, since Misplaced Pages is not about "fringe theories" or about "innovative reference work", or about "noumena", then eliminate those Misplaced Pages articles, already accepted as part of Misplaced Pages... Ups, I went too fast, I know that I should put some code, a code-snipet, or some acronym with links to insignificant wiki-essays... Am, go ahead, WP:SOME-WIKI-BLA-BLA-BLA, read about those concepts too... Oh, and BTW, read about kinds of monism too, there is not just one kind... "Youngsters, Remember what your professors said about Misplaced Pages ? Yes, our professors warned us all..."

The choice is naturalistically or non-naturalistically (i.e. miracle). Why do you call that a false dilemma? My professors said "it is ok to read Misplaced Pages as a starting point, but do bother to read its sources". You somehow try to WP:COATRACK a philosophical question into a science article. We have no use for that, the WP:RULES are clear. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I call that a false dilemma because 1) that is not the choice to be made in an encyclopedia article. The article of an encyclopedia state the facts about research conclusions, their limitations, quote opinions and state future research, but it doesn't play with words to hide the limitations of some hypothesis so that "any believer in God note we are atheists", as the current Abiogenesis article does) 2) There might be naturalistic explanations that are not based on mere luck (Abiogeneisis ,as put on the article, implies great chance events), but the simple fact is that Abiogenesis is NOT yet a certainty, so you put your "naturalistic option" as a premise, when it must be the conclusion, and it is not yet the conclusion (petitio princippii)... and 3) The false dilemma is also about ignoring a rational necessity to understand that is better to accept current ignorance than to bet in a group based on feelings. We don't have to choose that in this article; In fact, we are more neutral if we don't choose that! either explicitly or implicitly. The philosophical position was already put on the supposed "solely-scientific article" before I even read it (in fact, the implications of accepting a formal fallacy as ok, embedded in the article, was there before I came in!). And "WP:Rules"? You mean the misinterpretation and excuses framed to hide that the article wants to frame its non-neutral position & bias? They are so ad-hoc, and can be so easily put on justified dispute, one simply need to state the truth to understand why they are wrong. One last important detail. To study the implicatins of Abiogenesis. Our professors told us that the problem with[REDACTED] was not always on the references, but often the issue is the unchecked articles and the way interpretation f research are stated...

According to , science had been defined in a standard way as "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." Misplaced Pages is not the place for WP:PROPAGANDA against such definition. See WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr or Ms. Tgeorgescu, the definition of science that you quoted was Kansas State Board of Education... But if I seek a different definition by another group, one involved in Science, say the 'Science Council' one may define Science the following way (and I quote): "Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."... On this different definition, the aspect of Science is not constrained to "natural explanations", but, in contrast, as long as the method involves observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, then the notion of how "natural" an explanation seems to you is irrelevant... Which is rational, considering that, for example, Einstein Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics seem "less natural" than Classical Physics, less familiar, more "weird" and "spooky", but the evidence available of them required that us accept those Hypotheses as Theories. The point to be made is this: A scientific theory is not judged merely on how natural or familiar its premise seem, but it is evaluated on how the evidence integrates with predictive and descriptive aspects of the hypothesis to be verified in a phenomenon, including how rational & lacking in fallacies our ideas are when evidence is observed... You keep misinterpreting rational explanations of why something in the article is wrong and objections, thinking is just a "propaganda" (is not propaganda). Kansas State Board is not the Gold-standard in defining Science.

Your sophism is equivocation. "Natural" means "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural". It is not the antonym of weird or spooky, merely the antonym of supernatural. If you're advocating for the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science, Misplaced Pages does not need you. Take your business elsewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Think about normal. Welcome, and thank you for coming to the Teahouse with your concerns. Unfortunately we cannot help you for two reasons. Firstly, the Teahouse is here to assist editors who have difficulty with editing in general., and we rarely get involved with individual topic issues. Normally, we simply advise editors to post on the relevant article's talk page. However, in this case, I would certainly advise you and your husband against that, and simply tell you that you will not have any success trying to use Misplaced Pages to alert people to any concerns, new ideas or theories, nor to promote any personal interests you may have here. You see, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia which simply reflects what other reliable sources have published about notable topics. You can't simply add stuff that you happen to know. You first need to get your ideas or concerns covered by independent sources. Only then can it get accepted on pages here. For that reason your edits were immediately reverted by an automated bot which detects content that seems unreliable or damaging to the article. I'm really sorry about that, but there are other ways to promote awareness that don't involve editing Misplaced Pages, such as blogs and personal websites, as well as getting the attention of journalists in the mainstream media if there are serious issues which society has overlooked. Trying to change the world by changing Misplaced Pages first simply doesn't work. I confess to not fully understanding exactly what it is you were trying to get across, but I think the principle is the same no matter what ideas and concerns anyone may want to get publicity for. Misplaced Pages just isn't that place. Sorry. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from Misplaced Pages:Teahouse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)