User talk:Piper Almanac

Merging on Objective validity...

The dynamic is unfortunate. I don't think we (me, Lund, or Jeff) will accomodate Aqu. But if you really feel merging responses with rebuttals is better (as I definitely and earnestly do) then we have common ground and should start talking about it directly. One obvious starting point would be thrashing out an acceptable "Mars effect" section (one section, period, covering it). I really don't think I'm wrong when I say "is disputed" should be included in the topic sentence. But I don't mind noting A, B, C, replicated it in whatever form, if the criticisms are noted at the same time.

The long and the short of it is: I think the "point", "rebuttal" structure is no good. It works in certain discussions (mano-a-mano interviewing, say) but not on pages that are striving to represent an encylcopedia. Marskell 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits (literally in the last few minutes) have been helpful, thanks. "Astrologers say" was just everywhere. If I seem to be badgering with requesting "verify"... Aquirata asked for a source on "astronomy is accepted as a science" in an edit today. If someone wants to be silly, sometimes you have to be silly too (unless there is some "objective mechanism" to avoid it ;). I would say that there should be some source for "how astrologers view astrology" on the Objective validity page. Sorry if I haven't been convinced otherwise, but I have yet to see a basic position that astrologers per se have toward astrology. Perhaps that ambivalence should be stated. Marskell 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, the skeptic paragraph does NOT state "this article will show." Do you not understand how that wording immediately undercuts the point of the article? The article will show what it shows. We don't provide a thesis off the top. And I'm sorry--you'll notice above I state there should be some source for how astrologers view astrology. That source has yet to provided. Marskell 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have initiated a Request for Comment regarding User:Aquirata: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. Please feel free to comment. Marskell 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper, Thanks for your support! It's reassuring to know I'm not alone in this. Aquirata 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NOR (sorry for the long post)

Sorry if this is long-winded but I wanted to post to you the example of original research we use on our WP:NOR page for reading (or re-reading)

An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.

So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.

This example is much like edits you've been making and you really need to try and stop it. Detail a claim that has been made. Do not extropolate, annotate, attempt to invalidate etc.

This isn't to pretend I've never written an OR sentence and I do not think you're editing in bad faith (in fact, you're the most earnest person on the talk). However, I think a grasp of content policy is in many ways lacking for the moment. Marskell 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Astrology page

Piper, I have articulated why the page cannot be unlocked at present, and the reasons are many. What's your view, and how do you think we can get there? And by the way, thanks for your fantastic work on both the page and discussing the relevant issues! Aquirata 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep the page locked in its imperfect state (including Siddharth's silly changes) because of the references to important studies. The reader can make up his mind after reading the references, but if they are not given, nobody will do the work of searching them out for themselves.

I see several issues to be resolved before getting unlocked:

1. Categorization: Pseudoscience vs protoscience. I don't think astrology=pseudoscience can be reliably sourced, but we can take it to arbitration in the very likely event that M&J disagree.
2. Reliable sources: Correlation, TMA, JSE etc vs orthodox scientists views on astrology. Again, arbitration looks to be the way.
3. M&J not observing basic WP rules, i.e. they have a tendency to make major changes (e.g. deleting entire sections) without discussion and against the wishes of other editors. Not sure what we can do here other than an RfC.
4. Their hostile attitude towards astrology.
5. Their desire to kill anything in favour of astrology.

There is nothing we can do about the last two, but the first three must be resolved before unlocking in my view.

Thoughts? Aquirata 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the page was unexpectedly unlocked yesterday. The version now is quite good, much better than it was before the lock. However, you've been unusually quiet since the page has been opened up for editing?

How good is your User page?: Well, you tell me! :) Aquirata 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your comment on my userpage. Re fancy boxes, I have no idea, but they don't necessarily make the pages better IMO. Aquirata 13:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kudos to you both!"

I responded to your comment here with sarcasm, which I needn't have done. Sorry about that and I'm glad you liked some of the work. Marskell 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi Piper, we need your help on the astrology page. User:RJHall has suggested that we include a brief summary section or table on the beliefs associated with the different bodies in the solar system, particularly their supposed effects. I think with your expertise in the subject, you could contribute to it and improve the article. Thanks Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Marskell 12:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you sign up?

Just you and Aqu needed to move forward on mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology. Marskell 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to check out the current state of discussion on User talk:Marskell and User talk:Aquirata. Aquirata 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David Cochrane

I thought I'd let you know that the David Cochrane article has ben listed for deletion. In my view, it is important and in the interests of WP that users knowledgeable about the subject matter make their views known. If you wish to comment, please do so here: [1]. Aquirata 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)