User talk:Haisch

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here is some general information you may find useful: click here

Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.

You can find help with editing at How to edit a page including how to do special characters and formatting, and the Manual of Style is also strongly recommended. Specific questions can be asked at Wikipedia:Newcomers help page.

When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.

You should place new entries on Talk (discussion) pages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes like this:~~~~ (there is also a sig button at the top of the edit window), and you can indent your entry in a discussion thread by putting a colon (:) or several (:::) as needed in the left-hand margin. If you put a space as the first character on a line that line will remain unformatted (not recommended).

Happy Editing. --Blainster 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Theory book

It's possible I was too quick to remove you link. If you restore it I won't take it out again until others have had a chance to look at it. You could also put something on the article talk page asking what people think of including the link. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation is encouraged, but there are two problems with the link which you supplied to The God Theory. Links to external websites of a promotional nature, even for books, are deprecated on Wikipedia. The npov way to provide access information is to supply the ISBN number like this: ISBN 1578633745 (note no intervening colon). This creates an autolink to a Wikipedia page that in turn links to the book's target pages on a large number of worldwide libraries and commercial suppliers (including both new and used book sources). The second issue is that some editors may interpret the action by the author himself placing links to his own webpage as either subtle or blatant self-promotion. It would be better to seek a third party to place pointers to your work into Wikipedia. Best wishes. --Blainster 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bernard Haisch, Ph. D.

Chief Science Officer
ManyOne Network, Inc.
100 Enterprise Way, G-370
Scotts Valley, CA, 95066
Phone: 831.227.2601, FAX: 650.595.4466
haisch@calphysics.org

Curriculum Vitae

Publications, like Blainster and Tom Harrison, I presume that in real life you are Bernard Haisch, author of The God Theory and the author of work discussed in such articles as Polarizable vacuum, Stochastic electrodynamics and Zero point energy, and partner in the venture discussed in Digital Universe. Is that correct?

I independently noticed the fact that you added citations of Haisch's recent book (that is, to your own book?) to many articles. While I can see that the book might be valuable to someone researching Relationship between religion and science, it am not sure it was a good idea to add it in an article like Religion, since given the huge number of books which could in principle be cited on such a broad topic I think it makes good sense to focus on citing classic sources such as the book by Will Durant.

Also, while I recognize from your choice of "handle" that when editing as Bernard Haisch, Ph. D.

Chief Science Officer
ManyOne Network, Inc.
100 Enterprise Way, G-370
Scotts Valley, CA, 95066
Phone: 831.227.2601, FAX: 650.595.4466
haisch@calphysics.org

Curriculum Vitae

Publications you are not attempting to hide your identity (again assuming that in real life you are indeed Bernard Haisch), it seems that you may also have edited as an anon using the pltn13.pacbell.net domain. If it was indeed you who added a list of your own papers to an article like Stochastic electrodynamics (and IIRC some other articles) as this anon, these edits were probably not a good idea. For one thing, we are writing encyclopedia articles, not review articles, so it makes sense to choose the clearest or most recent paper, or if possible to cite a review paper.

For another, presuming that you did indeed sometimes edit as an anon using the pltn13.pacbell.net domain, while my best current guess you were briefly an "anon" before registering your Wikipedia user account, editing as an anon an article on a controversial topic in which you are personally involved without disclosing your personal connection is rarely if ever a good idea--- much better to register a user and disclose your connection. You can probably see why this kind of anon edit can raise eyebrows and lead to awkward questions.

It probably didn't help that the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been suspected of being used by (apparently) Jack Sarfatti to issue various threats and abuse regarding edits by other users (including myself) of his wikibiography. Please note that I am not accusing you of making any of those edits, and in fact I do not even suspect you of having made those edits. I suspect it was Jack Sarfatti who made those other edits, which incidently resulted in his being permabanned from editing the Wikipedia, from which you can infer (correctly) that they were far more objectionable than anything you are suspected of having done. Although we are aware that you happen to be acquainted with Sarfatti, AFAIK no-one suspects you of any involvement in that affair.

Over the past few days, I have had a thoughtful discussion with several other experienced Wikipedians concerning general lessons which can be drawn from the recent incident (that is, the cluster of recent anon edits which may have been made by you). We seem to generally agree that there is a need for clearer guidelines for a user who wishes to edit pages on a controversial topic to which he has a personal connection. We agree that unbiased and well-informed edits are always welcome, whatever the source, but we mostly agree that, at least in sci/math articles, following traditional scholarly values, full and complete disclosure of any personal connection (in a talk page comment or at least in an edit line or one a registered user page) is highly desirable to avoid the appearance of having done something deceptive. The model of the journalistic code of professional behavior also seems relevant, since writing an encyclopedia article on a topic of current interest arguably is more related to journalism than to writing a scholarly research paper.

We generally agree on the need to try to make Wikipedia readers aware of possible biases on the part of authors contributing to a given article, such as by mentioning evidence of a suspicious patterns of anonymous edits linked by domain, topic, and point of view, and suggestive of shilling, a clearly deceptive practice which has been alarmingly common at WP, and which some Wikipedians are trying to combat. However, we agree that such considerations must be balanced against legitimate privacy concerns.

As you may already be aware, I initially expressed my concern (not the same thing as making an accusation, as I tried to make clear!) in some article talk pages. (I just removed most of those comments.) There was never any question of posting personal contact information (as one Wikipedian briefly feared), so you need not be concerned about that, but some specific edits were cited and the domain name pltn13.pacbell.net, its geolocation in San Jose, CA and some other publically available information was mentioned. Following my discussion with the others, I have recognized that leaving an inquiry in your talk page is a more appropriate way to express my concern in this matter, so here is that inquiry. ---CH 03:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a DrMorelos (talk · contribs) who has also posted, as 69.109.222.23 (talk · contribs), from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain), in Talk:Gene Ray. "DrMorelos" says he holds a Ph.D. from an accredited university from the US and that he changed his name to "Dr.". If that is you, the humor wasn't lost, but see WP:SOCK. I hope you do plan to respond (politely) to my comment above.

I hope it is clear that I have no objection whatever to your having a WP account, I am just urging you to try to play by our rules, and because of the past problems, you may be asked more questions than most about anything which appears odd--- until you establish a pattern of good edits, which I hope you will do! ---CH 03:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply to my query at my user talk page. I will make the factual corrections and address the NPOV issues you mentioned. ---CH 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was unable to find time last night to address the issues you mentioned. I see you have modified the biography. It would have been better to let me do that (which I am about to do). You said in the edit line that you consider me "apparently hostile". Your impression from the above is more accurate. I am just about to revert to the earlier version, put up an {{inuse}} flag (to fend off Wikipedia:Edit conflicts, compare with your version from last night, and summarize on the talk page. When I have a chance I also want to comment on some of the information you provided in the message you left in my user talk page. I expect that all this should allay your fears concerning my motivation.---CH 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a new version which avoids concerns re WP:AUTO-WP:NPOV while addressing, I believe, the concerns you raised. See Talk:Bernard Haisch for a summary of the changes. ---CH 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page

Hi Bernard. I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied again. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with your placing a "disputed" tag on the article. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Hi Bernhard. I have a few requests. First I would like to ask you to please not refer to Hillman as "Christine". "Chris Hillman", "Hillman", "Chris", or "CH" would all be appropriate alternatives. Second could you respond to Chris's requests for "additional biographical information" and "confirmation that you agree that there are no factual errors in the current article"? Third, as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful. Finally on behalf of Wikipedia, I would like to apologise for any illtreatment or rudeness you may have experienced here. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected your user talk page

I've semi-protected your user talk page so that only established editors (i.e., more than four days on-site) can post messages to you, as I suspect your recent column may draw a number of random elements out of the wood work, including those who would use your talk page as a site for trolling and vandalism. This was done as a courtesy; if you'd like me to take semi-protection off, I or any other admin will be more than happy to do so immediately. JDoorj a m Talk 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that, over the long term, most members of the community generally learn to be civil, even if they do not agree with fellow editors, so I'm not too surprised that the community is muted. It's very new editors, visiting Wikipedia to make a ruckus, who are responsible for the bulk of the vitriol on the site (hence the semi-protection).

I should add, incidentally, that it is regrettable you've had run into the situation you have with the article about you; I wish it were less common than it is. WP:AUTO has its merits, though it also has its problems. "Resistance is futile" is obviously not the method I would have employed to try to address concerns you have. I think the user was trying to express empathy for your situation and it simply didn't come across very well. Please let me know if you're having continued frustration with the article. While I can't promise anything, I will certainly look into the matter. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dig page

Just so you know, CH has created a "dig" page to track what she calls your "POV-pushing" edits. See discussion here and on her talk page. Tim Smith 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. If removing negatively slanted material and pejorative terms is POV pushing, then I've done it. But in fact I am just trying to neutralize inappropriate POV pushing by Hillman in the first place. Have a look at her edits and it is evident how much she has used POV-laden terms and cherry picking of facts.

As for her claim that he "Gives himself a million dollar financial incentive to slant WP articles in his own favor." because I wrote back "Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career."

That was a response to her assertion that I should not be concerned about negative misrepresentation of my work because there is no consequence, not even a fifty dollar fine (I believe that's what she said). I wrote the above to point out that her pretty slanderous representation of my work could indeed have major consequences because people consult Wikipedia all the time and (unfortunately) believe what they read.

Frankly I would prefer not to be listed in Wikipedia at all but this has been forced on me by her. For another perspective on this have a look at [Larry Sanger's blog].Haisch 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haisch - you may be interested in the discussion here. FWIW, I think the community is beginning to get a more realistic view of "Hillman" and beginning to set limits wrt his/her/its behavior (although why it's taken so long is beyond me). DrL 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT edit articles about you or about the ideas you invented

It is a violation of WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. Promote your ideas on your own website, not Wikipedia's bandwidth. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my [Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece] to see why the subject of an article does indeed have a legal and ethical right to correct misinformation and slanted representation of his or her career.Haisch 18:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can correct what you perceive to be "misinformation" and "slanted representation" by talking to people on the article talkpages. Editting your own article is very bad form. --ScienceApologist 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maths and the Arts

A message: Anonimous quote on Maths and Arts. --Dr. Who 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]