Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirect[edit]

Should this article not simply redirect to morphic field, or the other way around perhaps, since they are both stubs that say pretty much the same thing? RaoulDuke 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As we have a separate one for Samuel Hahnemann, I reckon we should just leave it as is for now. Perhaps as encouragement to the people interested in the subject (I don't know who, exactly) to expand them. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but part of me wonders if it's fair to compare the two, since homeopathy is a pretty big deal (institutes, a multi-million dollar worldwide business), and this stuff seems pretty fringe. RaoulDuke 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, yes, it's not right to compare the two directly. It just depends on how deep people want to get into the biographical side of things. I just reckon to keep them separate for now, others may disagree, but it's not a big deal either way. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. RaoulDuke 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides morphic fields, there's a load of other stuff he wrote, like people who can tell when they're being watched, or pets who can tell when their owners are coming home. If anyone wants to look up that stuff and include it...? Totnesmartin 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are Sheldrake's ideas second-hand?[edit]

I noticed Ninian Marshall published a paper entitled ESP and Memory: A Physical Theory in 1960 found here [1] and in the paper he develops a "theory of resonance" which appears similar to Sheldrake's morphic resonance. A criticism of Marshall's resonance theory can be found here [2]. M. Helsdon (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake has also taken his ideas from the psychologist William McDougall (a Lamarckian evolutionist), the following quote is taken from his book Modern Materialism and Emergent Evolution (1929) pp. 154-155:

"Accepting then, Lamarckian transmission as a well-based theory, we ask how that bears upon out central problem. The answer is; It bears upon it in two ways, both of the first importance. First, it assigns mind a leading role in the drama of organic evolution, instead of regarding it as a mere spectator on the side lines. Secondly, it bears out the conclusion reached in our lecture on memory, namely, that the organization of a living organism is not wholly manifested to us as a spatially distributed material structure, but comprises organization of an immaterial nature. It bears out this conclusion; If the fundamental assumption of Biological assumption were true, namely, the assumption that all vital organization is material, Lamarckian transmission could not occur; for it is impossible to imagine any material mechanism through any modification of form or function acquired by the adult organism can impress itself upon the germ-plasm as a specific modification of it., i.e. a modification acquired by the efforts of the parent. It in fact just this acknowledged impossibility that has been the main ground of the great reluctance of so many biologists to accept the Lamarckian principle. If then Lamarckian evolution occurs, it is in itself good evidence of the reality of that immaterial organization which is indicated by all impartial consideration of the facts of memory, the facts of the unity of consciousness, the facts of integration and disintegration of personality, the facts of intelligent purposive activity."

So McDougall believed that the Lamarckian mechanism could only be immaterial, and operated in a field like way. This obviously influenced Sheldrake's morphic resonance and Sheldrake even cites McDougall in the bibliography of some of his books. The interesting thing about Lamarck was that he was a strict materialist, so both McDougall and Sheldrake have not read Lamarck's writings. It is interesting to me that Sheldrake to all of his ideas from others, but not many people have picked up on this. M. Helsdon (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I already knew about these. He's also taken his ideas from others. I have started a section on it. David1234 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaurs[edit]

We do, in fact, resemble dinosaurs in many ways. We're bipedal, we're omnivorous, we have much of the same bone structure, etc. So this is a bad argument.

Of course, that doesn't mean Sheldrake is correct. We resemble dinosaurs because we evolved on the same planet as them and share common ancestors if you go far back enough. I'm sure that if we ever make contact with some species not from Earth, we won't look anything like them, and Sheldrake will thus be disproven. This doesn't make the line about dinosaurs any less wrong though. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy[edit]

Isn't this blow-by-blow WP WIGO kinda trivial?--Coffee (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's not trivial, if you search online there are about 50 woo paranormal websites now talking about it. Sheldrake himself has brought into the conspiracy. David1234 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Still a trivial WP debate.--Coffee (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Relevant and interesting. If not on this page, material should be somewhere. Hipocrite 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Rome Viharo[edit]

69.31.70.44 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) has turned up defending Craig Weiler and Rome Viharo on the article and accusing skeptics of being materialists and "pseudoskeptics". Viharo was recently banned (again) on multiple IP addresses for vandalizing Wikipedia. I believe 69. 31 is indeed Viharo on one of his sockpuppets. David1234 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between "vandalism" and "crank edits". If you are talking about these blocks, those IPs were blocked for violating a topic ban, not "vandalism".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
also - you may wish to learn to difference between 'crank edits' and a 'wiki'. was the IP doing a crank edit or correcting one? 69.31.70.189 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
let's leave the guy alone. I'm going to remove the entire section if this keeps up. I see nothing on Viharo that would deserve a place here. 178.238.131.186 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop trolling Viharo, get a girlfriend or something buddy. David1234 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
removed 77.92.71.77 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Your IPs are blacklisted for comment spam, you obviously using a TOR network. Hiding behind fake IPs a real hero you are! Your wasting your time, every edit you make will be reverted. David1234 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add that the person who made those edits on the sockpuppet IPS is writing bull. He wrote regarding myself "JREF's Paul C Anagnostopoulos, who trolls as Mal Yankton" and then linked to some troll comments from Yankton on Craig Weiler's blog and said they were me [3]. They were NOT me. I am not Yankton, and from his avatar he is one dirty looking dude [4]. — Unsigned, by: Paul Anagnostopoulos / talk / contribs

"and from his avatar he is one dirty looking dude" - How old are you? Twelve?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

what have you contributed to rationalwiki otherwise stirring shit, trolling and defending woos Zooguard? You have created no articles, added no content, made 0 friends and just sit moaning at people on talk-pages all day. Cool life bro! As for your comment about a checkuser well that wouldn't work in your favor, as your sockpuppets would be revealed :)Paul Anagnostopoulos (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fragile ego, huh? :D Given your fixation on the personal qualities of your opponents, I don't think you are older than twenty. If you are, please behave like an adult.
As for my contributions to RW, all of your assertions are wrong.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have known Rome Viharo most of my life, we have published many spiritualist articles together. I am doing an interview with several newspapers about Viharo and the Sheldrake Wikipedia article. Email me on METGAT666@aol.com for any details. MT (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

comment from Rome Viharo[edit]

Hey guys - flattered your interested in my bio and I'll cherish your opinions of me here as reminders of all the reasons human nature tickles me to pieces - and wont seek to change them here or edit them in my own style. But, yikes! at least get the basic facts straight. I am not a creative director or co founder of zeitghost media. I worked there briefly in 2007/2008. If you're in need of references, please consult my linked in page. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rome-viharo/2/30a/a38

You may want to correct a few more things in the article too, a number of other errors, but I know those things are important to you and it gives me sh*ts and giggles to think that I have made it somehow in the pantheon of your worldview :) 76.167.97.23 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the link to linked in. (Don't get excited, I didn't click on it) Nah, I found some more reliable links for that info. Leuders (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I suggest clicking on it because it contradicts what is written in the article. I understand you guys are mad at me, although why I am unsure, but you're misrepresenting not just myself, but also facts about someone else other than me and a company I also have no involvement with. Is it necessary that you attack them too? I'm just asking, politely, that if it is necessary to your wiki to include your opinions about me in it, go for it. However please make sure anything you mention about me professionally or someone else is accurate, however as that raises another issue no one wants to be involved with. I appreciate your understanding here.76.167.97.23 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should you be taken seriously Viharo? You have been banned on every forum you have touched, do you remember when you used to troll the JREF forum? I was there. You have countless sock puppets, you use anonymous proxy IPS as seen above to sock puppet on. You are not innocent. You have been caught with your pants down on this one and there is no way you can escape. Craig Weiler has not helped you with all this exposure. More and more people now know you are a trouble maker. Fantastic. If you didn't mess around on the internet then none of this would happen. You have learnt your lesson. Paul Anagnostopoulos (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Paul Anagnostopoulos (talk), nice to meet you. It's up to you if you want to take me seriously or not but I'll answer honestly any questions you may have. I'm going to correct a few factually incorrect statements your site is publishing about me here in talk. It's your decision or anyone else here if they want the article to reflect facts or not. Although I have had a few different accounts on different forums, especially 7 - 10 years ago when I was active in online discussion, different account names on different forums is not sock puppeting and I can assure you that I do not have countless sockpuppets. I do note the article contains very clear factual errors here. If you want to know the names of the monikers I have used over the years, it's Bubblefish (although I was not the only 'bubblefish' at the time), Tumbleman, and I did a stint in viral marketing for a few years on and off to as the 'Fifi Bastard'. Other than a quick comment here or there on a forum and creating a quick account name to do so, that's it. If you look at fifi bastard, http://fifibastard.blogspot.com/ you see that it's clearly a form of online theater too. I come from a creative writing background, and I am sorry if this particular form of media has upset you.

I'm not any of those other accounts this wiki states gnu or fujako or anyone else. Publish what you want, I'm just telling you the facts. If you believe I am wrong here, let me know, I'm not hiding from anything. I was active in viral marketing until around 2009. It was fun - I come from a creative background and enjoyed playing in the new mediums and had a lot of fun developing that process when I did. It was meant to be provocative. It's no different than Sasha Baren Cohen (albiet not as funny) or Phil Hendry, two performers I admired and were inspired by. I also never trolled JREF and was never banned, I still have an account there as far as I know. I've been called a troll, but as you can see in this talk section, so have you. You were right to defend yourself if it's not true, and just because someone accused you of trolling does not make you one. I guess if someone edited your page here to say 'Paul has been accused of being internet troll Mal Yankton' you would be upset. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Accusations are not facts. I'm here to clear up the facts with you guys.

I'm not sure however why that even matters? I'm willing to work it out with you guys, you are clearly very upset about online discussions going back years, but I dont think misrepresenting me helps with that either.

In terms of the Sheldrake article - here are the facts

I met Rupert in 2012 in a professional setting, he asked for my professional advice on his website and was curious about using social media. He saw my Tedx talk and we chatted a few minutes about that too. I gave him a 30 min consultation and that was pretty much it and this was a year before the Wikipedia issue. I became involved in the debate around Sheldrake because I was drawn to the TED controversy. Rupert did ask for my advice in an email this year on what to do regarding his Wikipedia page and I told him I would take a look. When I did, I was shocked and told rupert I would jump in with my own reasons for doing so. You may want to have your own opinions of what I did as 'Bubblefish' years back, and I'm ok with that - but that's absolutely not at all why I was or have been on Wikipedia. I think the facts show that if people just look at my sandbox or sheldrake talk page. I didnt think any project from my past would be found out and still do not understand how it's even relevant to what happened on Wikipedia. As you know, and I believe you personally may have participated in, a campaign to 'out' my personal identity on Wikipedia, and all the accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry on WP are just not true - which i think is why my banning caused such a stir and so many others supported me and challenged the ANI decision. Now, you can believe they are true, that's fine, it's just not what the evidence suggests and I am proud of my contributions on the Sheldrake page.

You should know that philosophically, I am an agnostic. I actually proud myself on that, I don't believe much of anything, I just enjoy questioning and exploring all of it. Is that what is so upsetting? I am unsure why the article says I 'promote' pseudoscience or even more bizarre, the commentary from people in this forum who are either posting for me or claiming to write 'many spiritualist' articles with me - it's just ridiculous for me to read that. I am personally, and privately, interested in philosophical discussions around consciousness, but I throw my hands up in the air when it comes taking a stand of 'materialism' or anything else. If you have issues with that, I accept it and apologize if you have been hurt by anything I have written. It's not my intention. I want to encourage you however to have any opinions about anything that i have written and that's okay to print your opinions, I just am alarmed at factually incorrect statements about my professional life as well as a former business partner and friend, who actually himself is a big skeptic and atheist so is probably hating being lumped in here as well.

As for the incorrect factual statements regarding what I do professionally - you have my linked in page, you can see for yourself. I don't do SEO, astroturfing, or anything this article suggests I do but of course I am familiar with pretty much all online forms of distribution, marketing, planning, etc etc. At this stage in my life I am primarily a strategic consultant for audience development, which can mean social media, PR, or even just media planning and media buying. Yeah, I hate the ad tech space too, but it's how I take care of my family and I have actually been a thought leader in this space promoting transparency and compliancy, and have actually been responsible for busting a number of companies for black hat tricks, so I don't appreciate the association here from a professional standpoint. I'm also the developer of two patents in the technology space and in production now on both of them. I am definitely in development and production of a collective editor, of which the early OS 012 were sort of like 'field research' for. I'm not here to promote what I do , I'm just asking this site to provide factually correct information about me when they are writing opinions about things I have written, that's all.

Now, these are the facts. I'm willing to work it out with you - clearly you are upset and somehow have taken my writing personally, and I am sorry it has caused you discomfort - but let's squash this, eh? Tell me what you need from me to clear anything up. Thanks Rome Viharo 76.167.97.23 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

NO. Those are not the facts Viharo. You are a bullshitter plain and simple and you lie over and over. 5 Wikipedia admins blocked you for sock puppetry... stop playing innocent. And you lie that you never posted on Fujacko. You were exposed here Tumbleman, Fujacko banned. You use fake IPs. The only reason you are pissed is because you now believe your colleagues at work or your family might find out about your internet sock puppetry trolling. Sorry but in the future perhaps you should think more carefully about what you do on the internet. If you didn't troll then none of this would of happened. When I was a kid I wrote to a kid in my school that I was going to hang him for a joke, the police turned up on my door the next week. I learnt my lesson the hard way. Everything on the internet is traceable, and you should never ever troll because it comes out in the end. You also wrote to users on Wikipedia four times that you had never met Sheldrake in real life, yet now you claim to have met him and you are associated with his TED talk. You are a troll end of story. David1234 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinions, but your not entitled to your own facts. David, I see that it's you specifically that wishes to post these libelous things about me, especially when given facts to compare them against, and now you are accusing me of lying and now even being sockpuppets for other users on this forum, and it's you specifically that is using a wiki as a place to post defamatory information. That's all i needed clarification on. Rome Viharo 76.167.98.236 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have not given you any opinions. 5 Wikipedia admins blocked you - fact. You have been banned on a forum posting as Fujacko - fact. You admitted on this very page you have met Sheldrake in real life, yet on Wikipedia you said in your own words you have never met him - fact. So yes you have been lying. Yes I said you might be some sock puppets on this talk page but nowhere did I definitely say they are you, perhaps I was wrong apologies if I am wrong but I find it suspicious you turn up on anonymous IPs first deleting stuff on the article that have been blacklisted. Google search your IPS;
  • 178.238.131.186
  • 77.92.71.77
  • 69.31.70.189
  • 69.31.70.44
  • These IP addresses have been blacklisted as comment spammers and other internet abuse. I guess you were using some sort of TOR network. You then start using three other IP addresses (which have a cleaner record) but still you post from multiple IPs. How can you still deny you use sock puppets? Of course you have given no definite proof you are the real Rome Viharo, you could be someone pretending to be him. Either way you have been trolling and I see no reason to continue this conversation. Go jogging or something get another hobby than internet trolling. I'm bored the whole Sheldrake thing and people such as yourself pretending to be innocent. Don't bother replying to me again, I won't be around to read it. I am busy working on other articles. David1234 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I'm not responding for you to read this, I'm responding so there is a matter of public record. all the accusations of what I did in 2005 on ponderers guild, in 2007 on JREF, or in 2003 as bubblefish have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia and the arguments i presented in TALK, which are STILL being argued now by other editors. FACT, was not banned for being Fujako. FACT, never said I never met SHeldrake. FACT the 5 admins that voted were not following consensus policy since the majority of the community WANTED me to STAY. FACT: when your presented with an argument you cannot handle, you seek to defame the person that delivers it. Not very rational. I dont care about your 'IP' list that's irrelevant to this discussion. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Leuders (talk) I am sorry, but the 'new link' your providing as a source is also inaccurate. One it's years old and is no longer even a link on the internet, you had to go through internet archive to post it, and it's just a feed site that pulls data from any source, it's not even a reliable source. I told you my involvement with Zeitghost Media was in 2007/2008. I was not the founder. I have given you a factually correct source to my linked in page that corrects the error, are you suggesting that I am lying on my linkend in page? You are posting factually incorrect information regarding someone in a professional setting. Are you or any editor here refusing to make the correction? 76.167.97.23 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rome. Too bad you didn't have "Tumbleman" disclose his conflict of interest on Wikipedia straight away. Admitting he/you had met with Sheldrake to discuss PR stategies would have meant Game Over for old Tumbleman right off the bat! ; ) Leuders (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Check the dates of when the Internet Archive scanned those pages. It's today. That means the info is not old at all, it's live, today. Also anybody can put anything on Linkedin. I could say I was King of Prussia. You could say you're a media superstar. Not exactly reliable. But if it helps, I'll have the article note that you're "listed" as CD and partner at Zeitghost. Best wishes Leuders (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Anybody can also create a wikidot, which is the source your linking to, and that site no longer exists. you didnt need to use internat archive, the site is still up it's just a dead site and is pulling in archived information. as anyone can see when they actually go to the real link http://thezeitghost.wikidot.com/ - that you are choosing to use a defunct site as opposed to properly sourced information regarding my business biography to me just looks like proof of your intentions to foul my reputation. Again, thanks for clarifying your intentions. RV 76.167.98.236 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing. Those archived sites were pulling their information from actual sites that were live, as of yesterday, so I'm not sure what your point is. You have been recently listed as CD and partner at Zeitghost. So what? Why try to bury it? It's part of your history and it's entirely relevant to telling the story of your role in the Sheldrake Wikipedia commotion. And nobody here is mad at you. David1234 might be a little angry about you trying to deny you've been a smartass troublemaker on all those other forums, but that's about all. Also, stop with the quasi legal threats. You're better off ranting as FSC909 at forum.mind-energy.net where at least you have a receptive audience. Let us know what else you feel is factually incorrect about the RW Sheldrake article. We're all ears. Leuders (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
YES that's the point, please DO proper research. The site that was pulled (which is VERY suspicious that Internet Archive just happened to pull a random wikidot page two days ago while you were researching) is LIVE but it's a dead platform and it's a dead WIKI platform that anyone could have edited. And it's from 2008. That you choose to ignore common sense arguments, accuse me of lying on my linked in page, and choose to find any dead link that that supports your POV is, LIBEL. In a very very clear way. And since it affects business, that means it affects money. SInce this site monetizes revenue with those really cheezy Captcha advertising, that means SOMEONE is profiting from a site where libel is being used to defame the professional character of an individual. https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation 76.167.98.236 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm not posting 'quasi legal threats' I am posting the FACT that this is libel and your misrepresenting my business, which could affect how I take care of my family. YES absolutely I will take any measures necessary to protect that, including legal. Since this site is a monetized network and the two editors have admitted in this talk section to correcting the error, if you're an american citizen, there is a problem. Getting this site to release the IP's of the offenders is easy to do with one legal letter only. If someone is out of the country, well that's ok we still have their IP and they can be prosecuted under what ever laws run that country. I'm not asking anyone to take down an article on me, just make sure it has the facts straight. You can mention the bubblefish and tumbleman antics from 8 years ago, I dont care. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Paul A. has registered very recently and has no edits outside this talk page, so it's not exactly "[his] site". RationalWiki is a wiki (obviously), so, for the purposes of "whose site it is" you can think of it as of Wikipedia - A Thing That Exists and random people can register and post stuff on it. Now, how much of that stuff remains and for how long is an entirely different question...
And there's no need to copy links to user and user talk pages when addressing people, so please don't do that.
/me goes back to chewing popcorn. --ZooGuard (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Ignore user Paul Anagnostopoulos and his criticisms. It's most likely Rome Viharo pretending to be him like he has done elsewhere on the internet. David1234 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
And don't click on his Linkedin profile or send mail to the stupid AOL address his sock posted, he's just trolling for pingbacks of people's identities. Leuders (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There are other more formal ways of obtaining the identities of users here who are hiding their identities while posting this sort of libelous information. I prefer to use those. RV 76.167.98.236 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is posting any libelous information, perhaps you should read some policies on rational wiki. Everything you have posted has been trackable. The article is well sourced with your involvement with Sheldrake. You have done some trolling and you were banned on some websites and that is what the article says, end of story. Remember 5 Wikipedia admins banned you for sock puppetry, that's your problem not editors here. There is no conspiracy. As for the legal threats and finding peoples identities good luck finding mine, there's millions of David's in Germany... but even if you did discover my identity I don't care, I have not done anything illegal or spend my time trolling forums like yourself. I come to this website to debunk pseudoscience, not post libelous information. :) David1234 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are posting libelous information and not correcting libelous information when presented with proper sourcing. Try debunking you own misrepresentations before you try and set science right. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


On a more humorous note, I noticed Deepak Chopra has bought into Weiler's conspiracy theory regarding Rome Viharo on his twitter [5]. David1234 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well good to see that your sense of humor is not crushed by all these hard hours of searching about me online your putting in. I understand, you saw a photo of me online and find me handsome. Now you can't stop thinking about me and even though you keep saying you wont come back here any more to chat, you still do. It's fans like you that make this all the more worthwhile. I would invite you to follow me on twitter, but chances are you already do. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Fujako copied from Weiler's blog re: sockpuppet[edit]

I am shocked and bemused. I haven’t used the name Fujacko in nearly a decade, and suddenly I’m (sort of) internet famous!

However, even the folks at the Ponderer’s Guild knew I wasn’t a sock puppet of Bubblefish. In fact, the very link you posted in your comment lists me as an “accomplice,” so yes indeed: do your research. Admittedly some of those guys did think I was in cahoots with Tumble (a certain Victor comes to mind), and I may have been overly enthusiastic about his OS012 idea, but there were plenty of occasions when he and I disagreed. Too bad all those wondrous threads have been deleted.

Furthermore, Tumbleman and Bubblefish weren’t sock puppets but different usernames. I’ve never seen them appear in the same discussion posing as two different people, and as far as I know Tumbleman never denied having multiple accounts. Who hasn’t changed usernames? I certainly have.

I never understood why Bubblefish was so hated. He had a lot of great ideas and was funny as hell. I really enjoyed watching him push closed-minded people’s buttons. But he does seem to have a tendency to get into trouble. I hope he can redeem himself.

P.S. If you still think I am Bubblefish pretending to be someone else, you really need to get a life! http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/wikipedia-the-trial-of-tumbleman/ 76.167.98.236 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Facts regarding WP decision banning Tumbleman[edit]

There was no consensus in blocking the Tumbleman account and in the issue regarding the decision is still being challenged by other editors as a clear black and white case of ideological editors abusing and gaming the system. I was also cleared of sockpuppeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Tumbleman_WP:AR_displeasure 76.167.98.236 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, sources show there was consensus for your block, and it's not being challenged, at least in any formal way. [6]. And sorry again, sources show you haven't been cleared of sockpuppetry. [7]
Nope, not mistaken. The sockpuppetry charged was dropped and I was cleared to be unblocked until the bogus charge of trolling was trumped up because of some discussion I had in 2005 - here is the direct quote regarding it from the admin responsible for the block " 'Tumbleman might be telling the truth. I can confirm that his account is not compromised now, and he claims to have changed his password, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock him, on the condition that there be no more account sharing and no more sockpuppetry, with the understanding that if I find either again, I will block you indefinitely.' Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Anyone can read the talk page themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tumbleman&oldid=577773203#Tumbleman_is_being_accused.2C_and_I_wont_use_the_.27L.27_word.2C_in_a_manner_which_he_cannot_defend_himself 76.167.98.236 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Bogus charges, huh? So. It. Was. All. A. Conspiracy. Cool, when your WP user page shows that your account has been unblocked and there is verfiable evidence you're cleared of sockpuppetry, we'll certainly make note of it in our RW article. Leuders (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh you can report that I was blocked, and you can even list the charges - you just cant post libelous information and you are and therefore responsible and will be responsible for as long as this wiki is up. If your a neutral editor, which apparently you are not, you would be careful to post both sides of an issue, especially one that was challenged, is being challenged, and is getting press. If you want to believe that I was banned for trolling, go for it. All anyone has to do is actually check the evidence on WIKIPEDIA talk section to see the case. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Citing an outdated Talk page comment from two weeks ago. Ignoring the later unanimous decision to block you. Bragging that your story's "getting press." LOL. Welcome to the world of Rome Viharo. Leuders (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Science Boy - 'outdated' has no meaning on a wiki, especially when it's the final comment from the admin who blocked me from sockpuppetry. the only thing outdated on this talk page are those internet archive links you're posting about me. Irony never ends with this crowd. Ya'll project much? 5 ideological admins who blocked me have about as much credibility to the world as two editors on this page saying I'm a sock puppet. Everyone gets the Rome they deserve. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note this 76.167.98.236 user is an imposter. This is not the real Viharo. Liz (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Craig Weiler and his latest troll rant[edit]

Please add Weiler's latest masterpiece to the article Wikipedia: The Only Way to Win is Not to Play Liz (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not a masterpiece but hilarious that Weiler claims to be "neutral". David1234 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

More about Rome Viharo[edit]

If I felt like I could safely use my real name I would; I know that by posting anonymously I’ll be accused of being one of Rome Viharo’s socks. I’m not. But know that if he asked me to post on his behalf, I would. Gladly. I hired him as a consultant before he launched Media Social, and hired Media Social repeatedly. (I continued to hire them after Media Social was sold to Emerge Digital in 2011.) The company I work for would have NEVER let me hire him if he didn't have a sterling reputation as a developer/strategist - I would never have gotten sign off if his ethics had ever been in question.

I’m not here on behalf of Rome, though. I’m here because the content of the Sheldrake article shows up in search results, and as it relates to Rome it's not only inaccurate and unfair, it’s defamatory. Suggesting that he has falsified his professional background is libelous, and that can be easily proven.

I’m just going to only address the content on the Sheldrake page. I don’t have time to refute what’s on the talk page, although I’d like to. (Also forgive the lack of refs - don't have time for that either, and I suspect you guys already know where to find everything anyway.)

From the top, then:

  • Starting in late August 2013, a notorious internet troll named Rome Viharo…

Troll is a subjective term, and “notorious” is defined as “famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed. Rome is not famous or well-known - how could he be?? He was participating in forums on sites like JREF, which, according to Alexa, is the 2,024,610th most trafficked site on the web, or The Ponderer’s Guild, which had a whopping 1867 members.

  • Viharo claimed he was a "neutral" editor and not associated with Sheldrake, however posts on the TED website in March, 2013 reveal him to supporting the pseudoscience of Sheldrake.”

Can’t argue that, other than to say that Rome's participation re: Sheldrake page was designed to bring a NPOV to the article, not to support (or disavow) Sheldrake’s work.

  • Posting under the username Tumbleman began waging an unusual assault on Wikipedia's Rupert Sheldrake article.

“Unusual’’ assault? - I disagree with the use of the word assault, but whatever -- “assaults” on the talk pages of contentious articles on Wikipedia are hardly unusual.

  • “…included warning people to assume good faith and avoid making personal attacks - while accusing those same people of being biased and being part of a highly organized skeptical conspiracy”

You're pointing out that Rome was hypocritical while ignoring the hypocrisy of others, who accused him of far worse behavior. Gorgeous irony. (The entire discussion on the talk page is ridiculous on both sides of the divide.)

  • Tumbleman's orchestration of several simultaneous conflicts made the Talk page discussion so labyrinthine that other participants were nearly exhausted to the point of giving up.

I doubt this was a tactic that Rome would have employed, but even if he did, check out the maze of statements that users Barney the Barney Barney, Vzaak et al contrubuted. I was exhausted just by reading some of their comments.

  • After finally being nailed for sock puppetry

Big news! Rome isn’t the “zero-edit” KemRP or KateGompert! I am. I created an account for the zero-edit KemRP because I couldn’t think of a better name. 10 minutes later I came up with KateGompert (a sockpuppet of woomeister David Foster Wallace) and registered that account. Rome didn't have anything to do with it -- he didn't ask me to do it -- and he didn't even know that I had.

I used it once, in support of a statement Tumbleman made on the TALK page, and I supported his statement because I believed it to be fair and neutral. That was my only particpation in the Sheldrake article or on the talk page. (I lost interest quickly.)

  • …he is listed as Creative Director and co-partner of Zeitghost Media in Los Angeles, a company that boasts the ability to "create thousands of positive blog posts telling stories and distributing ideas" as well as manipulate "100% positive search engine results whilst "sinking" all negative or controversial material out of sight…”

Rome's association with Zeitghost was brief, and the tactics described above aren’t even in his skill set. It’s not what he does. But, even if he did, he’d be doing exactly what hundreds (if not thousands) of other companies do to utilize social media to build a “buzz” or optimize search engine results. You might not like it, but it’s a mulit-million dollar industry. It’s called “internet marketing.”

  • Viharo and business partner Maf Lewis attempted to promote an internet meme they called "Google consciousness" at a TEDx conference.

Since you believe that Viharo and Lewis gamed the system, please note that 145,000 views is moderate, particularly considering that Google Consciousness was the most popular TEDx talk worldwide for several months and TED gave it an editorial pick of the week. If someone gamed the system to generate more views, they failed miserably.

  • In October 2013, Craig Weiler made a series of posts on his blog defending Viharo…”

Weiler’s posts don’t belong in the section about Weiler.

I don’t expect that you’ll make any changes to the article, but as you’ve pointed out, what’s on the internet stays on the internet, and this is a grossly unfair portrait of Rome as well as his online activities.

Gotta go. I need to go game the system and bury this result. MrGrieves (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For Rome and his circus of socks[edit]

...fillin the page with arguments and threats that are Tldr, this Butthurt link may assist you. Leuders (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

yeah I read that link, especially the part that says before attempting to engage us about any articles it is very important to learn about who and what we are. The first thing you must keep in mind is our point of view, which we call SPOV. It stands for both snarky point of view and scientific point of view. All of our articles start from the perspective of rational, empirical, and scientific ideals.. that's when I really LOL'd. You've all pretty much disqualified yourselves as being able to interpret evidence. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
MrGrieves is clearly a sock puppet of Rome Viharo, and he has others on here. Check the edit history of this page, he posted magically within a minute of ‎76.167.98.236 obviously this is not a coincidence. His writing style is also a give away :)

Also his IPS:

  • 178.238.131.186
  • 77.92.71.77
  • 69.31.70.189
  • 69.31.70.44
  • 76.167.98.236
  • 76.167.97.23
  • He has no comment about these IPS being blacklisted for comment spam. I guess he will play innocent on that as well lol. I don't think we should feed this troll anymore, he is looking for attention. I'm definitely out. David1234 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Proof those are my IP's? Proof I comment spam? Oh right, your opinions are the only proof you need. I forgot I was on the Rational Wiki lol. I can't wait to create a page here called Oxymoron. I'll make sure it has a snarky ring to it 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For Delusional Editors who see sock puppets everywhere[edit]

It's going to be fun editing this wiki. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have communicated with an associate of Rome Viharo and he asked him if he had been editing RationalWiki. Viharo has replied that he has not edited this website. You are an imposter. Why are you pretending to be Viharo? Liz (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

He's just such an enigmatic figure I can't help it. 76.167.98.236 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rome Viharo can be contacted on facebook[edit]

The real Rome Viharo can be contacted on facebook https://www.facebook.com/rome.viharo he has not been editing rationalwiki. These IPs are all the same person, an imposter. Shouldn't this person be blocked for this? Liz (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rome Viharo section[edit]

Not sure what's going on in this talk-page but the Rome Viharo section is almost as long as the rest of the article. Maybe we should split them apart and have a pipe to a Rome Viharo article? Tielec01 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne on Sheldrake and the Wikipedia controversy[edit]

Link can be found here http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/the-bbc-and-chopra-buy-into-woomeister-rupert-sheldrakes-galileo-syndrome Debunker (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I predict Dean Radin will be next to join the conspiracy paranoia party! Leuders (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"If we look at comparing Sheldrake's career with the career of a typical high ranking academic"[edit]

The original was actually in proper English. I'm afraid this page will need constant supervision. :( Permission to engage the Proxima Protocol? (i.e. revert crap on sight?)--ZooGuard (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get it right. Basically, Sheldrake got it right, his career path was headed somewhere, but then he got off the professor train but pretends that he never did. Rewrite, reword, copyedit, just don't lose the essence that it conveys. :) Polly (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake was right!![edit]

Lovely article in the dailyfail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2509971/Are-PSYCHIC-Scientists-believe-animals--including-humans--collective-consciousness.html Liz (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

a-hole editor alert[edit]

What ever happened to the idea of upholding rationality? Seems a bunch of a-holes have hijacked this page and used it as a platform for initiating ad hominem attacks. This is a complete travesty. Someone needs to clean this mess up before it starts to spread like swine flu. — Unsigned, by: 111.69.103.94 / talk / contribs

Drink! Zero (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)