User talk:Geoffhl
Hi, this is my Talk page, feel free to leave me a message.
In 2021 I'm returning to Wikipedia after several years. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful and polite. Thanks. --Geoffhl (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
Why the caps?
[edit]i noted your addition of an external link to a book on the Crop Circle article and the use of capital letters for the word "NOT" in the title -- Vital Signs: A Complete Guide to the Crop Circle Mystery and Why It Is NOT a Hoax. Is that how it is printed on the actual book? Moriori (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's in the title. See for example this Amazon page (where the book has 5 star reviews, btw - recommended if you're interested). https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vital-Signs-Complete-Circle-Mystery/dp/1857702565/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=vital+signs+andy+thomas&qid=1636498308&s=books&sr=1-1 or the ISBN listing here https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?keywords=978-1-58394-069-3¤cy=GBP&destination=gb&mode=isbn&classic=off&lang=en&st=sh&ac=qr&submit= . (There's an American edition and a UK edition, I've got a US printed copy). Geoffhl (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Promotion
[edit]Another editor already reverted your latest edits at Talk:Crop circle without providing an edit summary, but the reasons were likely that it was unconstructive (WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:NOTFORUM), also promoting a particular website considered WP:PROFRINGE for Wikipedia. You were right that WP is close-minded about those topics and is not for WP:PROMOTION. Many popular claims are repeated everywhere and became tradition without being true (i.e. arguments that pyramids were too heavy or complex for the Egyptians of the time, or that certain old South-American walls have laser-precision where the knife of a blade couldn't enter between two rocks). Several "impossible" arguments you made seemed to be in a similar category.
But I also post here to mention that I have misunderstood the context, my comment was about using the book as a source, when your intention was to add an external link. It's a bit distinct, WP:RS vs WP:EL. Nevertheless, there seems to be no WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion at current time. Good are also WP:FOC and WP:ASPERSIONS: there are specific places where editor criticism can be made and evidence that they violate WP policy should be provided. The problem is not certain editors with a closed mind, but that WP policies acknowledge these issues and insist on better sources.
At the same time I'm empathetic because I used to believe incredible things myself when younger, without having the opportunity to test those views, or because I wasn't ready to put them in context yet. Whenever I saw a section on phylogeny or evolution on WP or in the scientific literature I believed that it was preaching for a religious dogma of evolution. It was frustrating because of my own ignorance of the topic and the indoctrination I was subjected to, using unreliable advocacy literature that seemed rational but was really full of serious flaws. I now understand how that information is useful and essential when available. —PaleoNeonate – 12:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi PaleoNeonate, you are most welcome. Indeed anyone who understands the word empathetic is welcome. You’ve pre-empted me. Earlier today I was genuinely thinking of contacting you, to apologise for sounding off in reply to your post, which was clearly intended to be helpful, as indeed is this one. Thank you. (I don’t know if anyone else looks in on this thread, but my apologies all round, I’d even toyed with messaging Moriori and saying thanks for reverting my post, as it probably shouldn’t have been said in a public forum). But to be honest, I lost patience when I saw your statement that the mere title of the book title was a red flag, because it smacks of censorship. Anyway, let me explain the background from my viewpoint. And by the way, what follows is my initial response, it will take me a while to read and hopefully assimilate the implications of all the links you’ve sent and I have other commitments this week.
- Initially I was almost shocked by the scathing and dismissive way in which my addition to the Further Reading list had been removed and 'justified': rudeness of that order surely shouldn’t be used to anyone, not least someone posting on an article for the first time. (Then to my discredit, I did something similar: I’ve vowed not to let that happen again. I’ll do my best although I feel very strongly on this issue). Then additionally, two further points.
- I was (and still am) utterly baffled by the anomaly that a well-researched 180-page book (and well-reviewed out in the real world, with several people saying it's the best on the subject - please be open-minded enough to look at the reviews yourself) which is specifically on the topic in question....why it's banned, whilst a link to a short article on a sceptical website is deemed ok. To me it seems a totally bizarre contradiction that constitutes double-standards of a high order: has the sceptical website article been peer-reviewed, or whatever’s needed for books, or does it get an exemption because it’s on-message? And it’s one which swallows hoaxing nonsense, unsurprisingly as the only references it contains (bar one) are to known hoaxers or a leading sceptic. (I can't access the second one down).
- Then obviously to learn that there’s actually an active policy of bias against crop circles came as a surprise, albeit a light-bulb moment explaining the lack of balance in the article as I see it. I attempted to reply to these points calmly with a well-thought-out rationale. But on your response re the red flag, I’m afraid I flipped out of my usual calm and I hope rational response and let off steam. I acknowledge that some of what I said, should not have been, particularly in tone and in a public forum.
- If you are willing, I would welcome further engagement with you (and anyone who can be civil and articulate) on this topic. Obviously I need to learn the WP parameters, and you've set out some of these. Equally, I’m keen to try and understand the thinking of what appears to be the majority of contributors to the crop circle article, to decide whether it’s worthwhile even trying to contribute what I feel is constructively via the main Talk page.
- For starters, the ground-rules of this my user talk page please. If I wish to explain points to you, I assume I can for example, include whatever links to say external websites that I wish to, etc, but please confirm. So basically, this can be a ‘normal discussion’ and not stilted by the normal WP rules and regulations other than assuming good faith and being civil? But bearing in mind that of course it's all publicly visible.
- ATB, Geoff. Geoffhl (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reponse. I'm not really interested in discussing the crop circles topic more, but you're welcome to ask for technical WP tips. WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:HD are also often useful. On your or my talk page, you can indeed provide links, there's also WP:RSN where the community can assess if a source is acceptable (ideally the context/proposed material to use it for should be provided). Well maybe this last note, in relation to the censorship impression: it's common for promotional material, or even for mainstream journalism on a topic, to include many points and counterpoints as opinions (as is commonly said, letting the reader decide, or sometimes even in the case of promotional material, suggesting that there would be some legitimate scientific debate, since I mentioned evolution before, teach the controversy is an example). Despite all the links above, here are more related ones: WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI: Wikipedia is indeed different in that respect. —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines
[edit]
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Crop circle for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.
Please also read WP:TPG, WP:SOAPBOXING, and WP:NOTFORUM. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi JoJo, I thought that I’d made very clear that I was proposing a change to the article, whereby two widely-held viewpoints should be set out in the article, not just one. As this would be a significant change to the article, I politely raised it in the Talk page: surely that is one of the principal purposes of the talk page? In order to justify the change, I went to some lengths to explain a major part of the rationale for changing it by providing background information (on hoaxing) that other editors may not be aware of. Thus my aim was to contribute in a constructive way to the validity of the article.
- I was hoping for constructive feedback on this proposal in the light of the rationale that I explained, however my thoughtful contribution has been deleted so I can't now receive that. As I went to considerable trouble to set out the rationale for proposing the change, I’d be very grateful if you’d please explain/comment upon two points.
- Firstly, what aspect of what I posted did you feel was objectionable? And would it have helped if I had prefaced the information on hoaxing with a statement as to why it was being explained?
- Secondly, is it realistic to imagine that there will ever be an acceptance by the gatekeepers of the article that the article could set out both sides of the controversy?
- Thanks, Geoff. Geoffhl (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Several editors have explained to you, in detail and with explicit reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the problematic aspects of your desired contributions. You have made your points clearly, they have been understood, and they are not receiving support (see WP:CONSENSUS). You earlier wrote
Obviously I need to learn the WP parameters
, and I here reaffirm that correct statement. Therefore, before posting anything more on the Crop circle Talk page, I strongly suggest that you read WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, WP:RGW, and WP:GEVAL. I understand that's a lot of reading, but it is essential. Those policies and guidelines are long-standing and are not going to change any time soon, so if after reading them you decide that you do not like or approve of them, I further suggest that you find a place other than Wikipedia for posting your desired content; for example, a personal blog or a website that specializes in fringe/pseudoscience topics. Lastly, please understand that if you continue to populate that Talk page with wall-of-text arguments (see WP:WALLS), no matter how informative or important you believe them to be, you open yourself to the real possibility of a topic ban, or worse. No body wants that to happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Several editors have explained to you, in detail and with explicit reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the problematic aspects of your desired contributions. You have made your points clearly, they have been understood, and they are not receiving support (see WP:CONSENSUS). You earlier wrote
Thanks JoJo, I understand the need for rules and policies.
As you can probably surmise, it’s the underlying issue that I’m astonished by. I’ll speak candidly as this is tucked away in my talk page: it’s a combination of 1) the belief (and as I said, it is a belief because there’s no evidence) the belief by a group of thoughtful people that the absolutely mind-blowing 409 circles of the Milk Hill Spiral Galaxy (and thousands of other massive complex formations as instanced in the Youtube video in External Links) could and must have been created by hoaxers in the dark; with 2) the idea that to even question the possibility of this being achievable - is classed as fringe theory, when most of the world that’s looked at it thinks wow, that’s impossible for blokes to do at night, what’s doing it? I find this staggering and baffling from thoughtful people.
Now to find that when I give a thoughtful and rational indication of what’s actually achievable by teams of hoaxers, and how long even much simpler man-made formations actually take in daylight, which I believed would contribute to the understanding of this key aspect the subject – to find that this contribution has been immediately closed down – what can I say? It feels as if the knowledge that hoaxing is not a viable explanation must not be allowed to get out to a wider readership.
What’s really sad is that there’s so much more richness to this subject that could be added to the article – here are a couple of aspects that aren’t touched on at all.
Firstly the fact that there are numerous published instances of crop formations appearing within the space of say an hour, or a known short period of time, as a smallish proportion do happen during the day. Surprising? Yes. True? Yes. One example, from many: suspecting a formation would happen in one of the most-visited and famous locations, East Field at Alton Barnes, a night vigil/watch was held on the hill overlooking East Field before/on 7/7/07. Cameras trained on the field seemed to show that the formation was not there at around 1.35am. but as the sun rose around 4 am the truly massive formation was visible. (Actually one of the few I’ve been into).
And second, that it would be almost impossible for hoaxers to replicate the complexity of the basket-weave lay, contra-directional sweeps of laid crop (sometimes outward from the centre and butting up against radial sweeps) and twisted/plaited tufts in so many formations: this complex floor-lay and plaited tufts is truly astonishing and really does have to be seen to be believed (I have) or seen in photos.
The one consolation I have in being excluded from this site is that crop circles are so immensely visual and finding non-copyright photos would be a problem to do them justice in a short article. But then all good formations can be seen on the web. And by the way, Crop Circle Connector (which for 25 years collates/has collated all reports of formations during the season) shows there have been 27 real formations this year (some simpler and most more elaborate) and 6 hoaxes. The last one of the season was a real beauty, and most these days have aerial video which is worth a look.
In fact do have a look at the one in CCC from the 15th August at Roundway/Oliver’s Castle, as it has an excellent example of the basket-weave floor-lay, and look especially at the video, the drone guys do a really brilliant job. (And with that one, they start with a bit of scene-setting to show the location, it’s a beautiful area).
But sadly we don’t get to tell the true story of the phenomenon – there’s so much more to it than you guys who only read sceptical articles would realise.
Anyway, on a lighter note, I hope that you’ll spend ten or fifteen minutes looking at the wonders that are happening out in the summer fields: I’m not being provocative (well, only a bit!) when I say, Google ‘real crop circles’, and enjoy them – they’re good for the soul.
Thanks again for pointing me to the rules and regulations, I’ll bear that in mind if I ever return.
ATB, Geoff L. Geoffhl (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)