...but I don't want the bludgeoning simply transferred to my talk. The editors at the article should treat that as any other edit request from someone with a COI. valereee ( talk) 15:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cosmology, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1068491098. And comments welcome at its talk page if you detect obvious problems or omissions... — Paleo Neonate – 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your deletions from The Cosmic Serpent because your rationale for removing the material makes no sense. A crazy as Narby sounds, your edit makes it seem like you didn't even review what you were deleting, as the cited material you removed criticizes Narby. Further, the material adheres to various guidelines pertaining to synopses for non-fiction articles. You cited WP:REDFLAG which makes no sense for two reasons: one, the synopsis is written within the context of the author's stated claims, and two, biophysicist Jacques Dubochet debunks Narby's assertions within the same section, fulfilling the remit of REDFLAG. Again, it really sounds like you aren't reading what you are editing. Viriditas ( talk) 11:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: I'm confused
That makes two of us. Consider
your diff which kicked off this conversation. Can you see that you (re-)introduced two sources? One was Jay Griffiths and other was Narby's follow-up book. I also don't understand your distinction between "supporting Narby" and "citing Narby" vis-a-vis Jay Griffiths.
jps (
talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Further, do you admit that the source I removed was not to Dubochet?You clearly removed Dubochet in this diff. I can't respond to your other comments because they make no sense. Either there is a language barrier or you honestly don't understand anything I've said. I'm not attached to the articles in question, and I would seriously recommend redirecting them to their parent temporarily. However, you are doing an endrun around the current discussion and that's why I reverted. How about letting the discussion play out? Viriditas ( talk) 12:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Trying to figure out what is going on here, I think that the Dubochet criticism that Narby is quoting might be found in this French-language book: [1]. However, I cannot confirm that as I do not have the book and no libraries near me have it. Can you confirm this? If so, that would be a good source for criticism, but I would appreciate not relying on Narby's translation as, at a minimum, this would be a slight conflict of interest, I'd argue. jps ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Talk:Sun#Formation_prose_structure concerning the FA prose in the formation subsection. Viriditas ( talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
So how to approach this? I respect the OpenStax team for doing a pretty good job of summarizing at an appropriate level the state-of-the-art understanding of astronomy. They just updated with 2e, so we could start by seeing the differences in emphasis or character between our star formation article and their chapter. jps ( talk) 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi ජපස, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, ( t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
What in the world is driving this? Even claiming that an in-depth investigation is an opinion piece. FTN? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Not to get all philosophical or anything, but Wikipedia has cultivated a culture that looks at policies as though they are gifts from god. I understand why WP:BLP is as stringent as it is. There was a time when Wikipedia was a literal defamation engine. But we've moved well past that era and there are nuances that were not captured when the policy was being formulated which have come to the fore. There is a culture here that it's okay to basically be a WP:JERK here at Wikipedia as long as it is in the service of keeping BLP sourcing to a "high level". The problem is, the editorial judgement of what makes a source "high level" is always contextual. And here we are. jps ( talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite to talk [2] jps. Don't worry, I didn't think you were accusing me of being a member of GSoW, I accurately interpreted what you meant to say. I've explained my side of things as I see them on Roxy's page [3] and if you (and perhaps @ Doug Weller:) would share your perspective I think that could be really helpful for all of us. Also open to any questions you still have about me or why I made certain edits. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually am doing thatI'll line up to purchase a copy. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to bring back the ESI Table in Earth Similarity Index article for research purposes. Nicholas Herak ( talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically, we're trying to determine which laws dictate who can delete your comment on the Barbro Karlén talk page. Thank you. LightProof1995 ( talk) 07:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and express my appreciation for your work keeping the woo on Wikipedia to an appropriate minimum. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, I appreciate your support at Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods#RfC about mentioning of climate change, but you're being a bit disruptive. Yes, some editors there have put forward very poor reasons, made obviously flawed statements, but I fear you might be getting close to the point where you might accidentally breach WP:NPA. I've explained there in a recent reply why I felt I needed to start that RfC, as the most neutral way to get attention to the issue. I know the whole thing became a discussion that is very frustrating to participate in, and even I resorted to some occasional cynicism, e.g. to deal with accusations that this was "off topic". But don't let this absurd discussion drag you into a useless fight! So let me give you some advice: Keep WP:COOL, spend some time away from the article and in other areas, and come back in a few days. It helps! (I know you are a much more senior editor than I am, but that won't stop me from giving you advice :P) I promise I will keep an eye on the page in the meantime :) -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a friendly head's up that a discussion was started on the reliable source noticebaord to determine if the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is a reliable source. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, so I wanted to let you know about it and say you may participate here. Have a good day! Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, and not that it matters much, but a quick analysis with Stellarium reveals for that date, time, and location that Jupiter was actually 9 degrees above the horizon. So thanks for removing those unsourced "facts." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment at my talk about my shepherding, but I also want very much to thank you for your contributions in that effort. Your input helped a lot, and it made all the difference. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The Death Barnstar | ||
Hello jps,
Thank you for your contributions to Reincarnation. Excellent contributions to articles about death earn this wicked award. "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure." -- Theodore Roosevelt LightProof1995 ( talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, jps!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
ජපස, if you meant to fail this GA nomination in your review, you didn't finish the job. At the moment, the review remains open and unresolved. The discussion at WT:GAN at the end of September does not appear to have affected the review one way or the other.
To complete the failure process, please see WP:GAN/I#FAIL for the remaining steps. If that is what you wish to do, I'm happy to help if anything is unclear.
If you have another solution in mind for this GAN review, please let me know your intentions, and I'll see what can be done. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Wilson (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your posts here and here, I favor inclusion criteria for both List of reported UFO sightings and UFO sightings in the United States such that the listed events/topics/things have their own, stand-alone enWiki article. That criterion should go far in improving the articles by excluding non-notable, stubby, some-guy-mentioned-something material. I am willing to do my part to keep the ball rolling, as you wrote, by starting the process, but I am uncertain how best to proceed. Would you recommend a full-blown RfC at one/both pages, or simple (yeah, right) Talk page discussions to achieve consensus? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think a discussion doesn't need to be initiated until you encounter resistance. jps ( talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Isn't this worth a deletion? Yann ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding If I was going to write a textbook on UFOs (and I actually am doing that
from
here, is there any good news on that front? A year-long, off-continent sabbatical is coming up in a few months (not mine, my wife's) and I'm lining up things to read/explore/drink.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Your notice of the Alderney UFO case on WP:FRINGE noticeboard constituted canvassing according to WP:CANVASS, specifically WP:INAPPNOTE. Your audience was chosen specifically as you believed they would support your point of view, and your message was not neutral. Please avoid this in future.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I mentioned you in an ANI post regarding Boynamedsue's editing behavior at the AfD. Here is the ANI post: [5]. Regards, --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am wondering if " Giant of Castelnau" should be posted at FTN. The claims are outrageous. In fact looking at the discussion on this article's talk page, I'm thinking this is an AfD candidate. The sources are dated in the 1890's except for one 2017 paper, which discusses the mythology of giants over time. So, that paper does not specifically pertain to the topic. According to the talk page comments, there has been no discussion of this topic since the 1890's. So, what do you think? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I found that comment amusing so I changed my signature. If you don't like it let me know and I'll change it back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you writing about me on a related off-site site? If so, why haven't you alerted me to this? I know that's not required but, come on, Wikipedian courtesy? And if not, apologies, but someone apparently has been since the Leary thing happened yesterday and is not willing to "accuse" me of things to my face on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Please read it before linking it again. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've bestowed me status I don't deserve, but no problem. The Grusch article is still in the huge and messy stage, so I'll just avert my eyes for the time being. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your indefatigable, long-term efforts to promote encyclopaedic values at David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims and many, many other places. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
Hello. I noticed you mentioned the Pioneer anomaly here (David Grusch talk page). I remember following that via our Wikipedia article. I started following it perhaps a year before it was solved. It was totally mind-blowing. What could it be?? Then it was satisfyingly solved. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Beatrice Tinsley isn't in the greatest of shape. I want to expand the material on her contributions to astronomy. There are three major parts missing from her professional work: the astronomers whose work she challenged (and possibly superseded, although their sister articles like the big crunch do not mention this), the work she promoted, and finally the work that eventually subsumed her own. I don't know how knowledgeable you are about her, but perhaps you have some advice for moving forward. I can do what I can do with the sources in the further reading section, but it would be nice to have some suggestions from someone in the field. For example, you could make some recommendations on concepts that the bio should mention, etc. Viriditas ( talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh gee, I'm not sure at all about that one. I think in general the stellar populations, metallicities, and densities of ellipticals would tend to favor fewer planets than bluer, metal-rich, un-dense counterparts. But when you've got a trillion stars, it would be folly to argue "no planets". jps ( talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
do you think that looking for life or intelligence on exoplanets might be a lost cause, similar to how SETI has historically looked for radio waves?It is always a good idea to keep open the possibility that the answer to "Where are they?" is "Nowhere." By the same token, you are guaranteed to never find anything if you don't look. Attempts to assign values for a Bayesian prior on these questions, I think, are fraught. David Kipping, I think, explains that point the best. I do not begrudge the SETI folks at, for example, Breakthrough Listen their searches for signals. It's a high-risk/high-reward kind of endeavor that we humans cannot help but engage in. Moving beyond anything but the question of what a technosignature is and how we might decide we've actually seen one is something I'm not prepared to do. I thus get pretty uncomfortable when anyone makes any claims about how life (let alone intelligent life), if it exists beyond our little world, behaves generally out there in the Universe. I also think that science fiction has a somewhat outsized influence on the way SETI people and scientists generally have framed questions and looked for certain phenomena in astrophysics. I would argue that one particular episode of Star Trek: TNG is probably the main source of inspiration behind a minor fad in the scientific literature that tries to model Dyson spheres/Dyson swarms etc. Is this a good way to go about scientific advancement? Eh... I don't know. When you have one datapoint, it is hard to extrapolate. The fact is that in science, it is extremely unusual to see one thing that is never repeated again. The closest I can think of is the Oh-My-God particle consideration of which has yielded some interesting follow-up science though nothing that has yet matched the energy of that monster. Likely what is going on is that we don't actually know what to look for. Let's assume there are pieces of evidence permeating the cosmos pointing to an answer in the negative to the question "Are we alone?" -- my guess is that we are almost certainly still unclear about what is the easiest observation to convincingly make that case and we probably won't really understand how and why we are going about it in the wrong way until we actually make the discovery. For hundreds of years people correctly proposed that planets were probably orbiting most/all the other stars. It was within my lifetime that such observations were finally done to confirm that exoplanets exist and it turns out that the easiest ones to discover look nothing like our own. Which is not to say that no exoplanet system is like our own, and, in fact, our kind of system may very well be somewhat common -- but it's just harder to observe. I kinda like the analogy there.
Yeah, Neil is great, but he sometimes runs afoul of certain Gell-Mann Amnesia issues similar to Kaku, but, I would argue, not as severe. Sean Carroll is a personal hero of mine even though I find his staunch advocacy for the Many worlds hypothesis to be a bit bewildering. jps ( talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | |
For the record, I value your opinion! I like being pushed on my ideas and engaging in good-faith discussion because it helps me better understand my own position and arguments. Thanks Curbon7 ( talk) 21:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC) |
Please avoid making personal attacks, as you did here [10]. Having failed to follow that guideline, please strike. Thanks! Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The question of the SARS-CoV-2 origin: whether it was a zoonotic spillover from a wet market, or an engineered virus that escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is seemingly a debate that will never go away. Most interestingly, while scientists with specific domain expertise seem to be building a consensus towards the former, public opinion appears to be trending towards the latter. This delta between expert and popular opinion has been helped along by the frothy discourse in mainstream and social media, with most figures that we cover in this podcast dead-set certain that it came from a lab.
Most recently, Sam Harris hosted on his Making Sense podcast the molecular biologist Alina Chan and. science writer Matt Ridley, spokespersons for the lab leak case, and authors of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19". To a layperson, and certainly to Sam, they put forward a rather watertight case. Intrinsic to the arguments advanced were the ideas that (a) experts in the area were refusing to engage with and unable to answer their arguments, and (b) a strong implication that there is a conspiracy of silence among virologists not just in China but internationally, to suppress the lab leak hypothesis.
So, as a case study in the public understanding of science, it seems like a pretty pickle indeed. To help unravel the pickle(?) in this somewhat special episode, we are joined by three virologists who are amply qualified to address the topic; both in terms of the evidence and whether they are involved in a conspiracy of silence.
Kristian Andersen is a Professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research. He focuses on the relationship between host and pathogen, using sequencing, fieldwork, experimentation, and computational biology methods. He has spearheaded large international collaborations investigating the emergence, spread and evolution of deadly pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus.
Prof Michael Worobey, is the head of the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. His work focuses on the genomes of viruses, using molecular and computational biology, to understand the origins, emergence and control of pandemics. Recently, his interdisciplinary work on SARS-CoV-2 has shed light on how and when the virus originated and ignited the COVID-19 pandemic in China and how SARS-CoV-2 emerged and took hold in North America and Europe.
Prof Edward "Eddie" Holmes, is an NHMRC Leadership Fellow & Professor of Virology at the Faculty of Medicine and Health at Sydney University, a member of the Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a Fellow of The Royal Society. He is known for his work on the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases, particularly the mechanisms by which RNA viruses jump species boundaries to emerge in humans and other animals. He has studied the emergence and spread of such pathogens as SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, dengue virus, HIV, hepatitis C virus, myxoma virus, RHDV and Yersinia pestis.
All three researchers have specialist expertise and decades of experience directly applicable to tracking viruses and their adaption to humans, and, fair to say, are fairly eminent in their fields (Eddie in particular!). Further, they are among the relatively small set of researchers collecting and analysing primary evidence on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, communicating their findings in top-ranked journals, including Nature and Science.
In this episode, Chris and Matt put to this trio of Professors the claims raised by lab leak advocates to see what these (damn conspirators) experts have to say for themselves.
No doubt. Sometimes the people who are arguing most vociferously that it has to be lab leak or that scientists should pay attention to their minority reports tip their hand by implying that they think all scientists are in it for the grift. No, honey, scientists are motivated to find the truth. They aren't funded to conform to a political agenda. jps ( talk) 11:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Have you read this [11] by Massimo Pigliucci? There is also this [12] written by him. But, the second linked article seems to be a topic that we deal with on Wikipedia fairly regularly. If you want more fun then take a look at this [13]. Well, now you have your assigned reading for the week :>) --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The impetus for the above is this new article I am working on in my user space [14]. Not sure when I will make it a main space article. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unidentified flying object, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jacobs.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello There, I just want some clarification on the very long winded discussion related to Adragon De Mello's projected IQ of 400. I don't know how much of the discussion you read or who you agreed with or what not. I just want clarify that I believe that following statement is sufficient, Adragon's father claimed Adragon had a projected IQ of 400 based on a test administered to him at 4 years old. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
In the discussion we went into the nature of projected IQ's and whether they are accruate or what not, who can accurately access or divine whether a child's projected IQ is legitimate. And acknowledging that a projected IQ is not an actual IQ. There was already consensus that the sentence, followed by this sentence was sufficient, "However when his father enrolled him in Popper-Keizer, a school for gifted children, standardized tests Adragon took suggested he was around the 85th percentile for students his age, where most students enrolled in such schools where in the 95th percentile."
My Interlocutor in the discussion asserted several things which where WP:OR, such as that Adragon had an IQ of 115 based on a test that wasn't an IQ test,that Adragon wasn't a prodigy because he had help with college homework at 11.That Adragon's father was claiming that he had an IQ 400 before administering a test to him.
I believe either the 400 IQ claim should not be mentioned at all, or should be mentioned as a claim made by his father as WP:NOTE. It should not be "disputed" by people who do not have the expertise to dispute it and instead want to editorialize something they are not familiar with. And if they wish to dispute it, why not investigate the test administered? (Again they are many proposterously high projected IQ's for children out there like Sho Yano.
Best regards 68.189.2.14 ( talk) 68.189.2.14 ( talk) 22:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier deleted my evidence section. It could not have been an edit conflict, because my name was in the edit summary. And his statement, paraphrased: "People are making evidence-free allegations".
Is there evidence for me to allege that Selfstudier is deliberately trying to gaslight me? Walt Yoder ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to privately comment as a peanut gallery in your current discussion on Zionism, race and genetics on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. You're coming across quite hot there, calling people "numbskulls" and you're forgetting to assume good faith in slinging accusations around. I get that's a contentious topic and it's not one I want to go near at all as someone with no expertise, but I think it's perhaps worth stepping back from this one slightly (and consider a strikethrough on some of your harsher phrasing, perhaps). Warrenmck ( talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure where I called out a commenter for not reading the sources. And, to be clear, I don't view my blocks and bans as a mark of pride. The idea that stepping away from highly contentious places will allow me to regain perspective is an interesting one. I'm not sure I've seen it borne out empirically, but Wikibreaks are nice things, for sure! Perhaps I'm overdue for one! jps ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Tryptofish! The two comments of the first quote are completely unnecessary to the meaning of my post. I redacted them. The second one, I guess, is personalizing because I am accusing the opponents of operating differently than WP:ENC? I'm trying to see how it is personalizing because I would like to do better. jps ( talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
[17] Does taking out "some bizarre parallel universe" help make it more civil in your eyes? jps ( talk) 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
References
I don't think any progress is possible when discussion occurs at the essay TP. Discussion is also marred by the fact that most editors have zero idea what a citation index is or what it means to be "selective": they just trust the claim that certain indices only contain "the best" journals and do not realize the implications of auto-notability conferred by inclusion. I think a well-thought-out RfC that explicitly focuses on the aspects that conflict with PAGs would be helpful:
I think now we have the perfect opportunity of fixing NJOURNALS: we have the attention and agreement of several external editors. It's the only way the local consensus is going to be overridden, clearly the NJOURNALS authors are beyond the reach of reason. It needs to be something short and to the point. I'd suggest "Are the criteria 1.b and 1.c acceptable for determining notability?" Tercer ( talk) 07:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ජපස,
The AFD on this article closed as "No consensus". So, moving it to Draft space was an improper and irregular editing decision that was bound to quickly be reverted which is what happened. Please do not act against the consensus of an AFD closure even if your personal opinion differs from that outcome. Doing so persistently could lead to a partial editing block from the article or some more severe action. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
I love you, dude, but this was not helpful. The primary contributor is already asking other editors for help expanding the older aspects of the topic, and they even posted a preliminary outline on the talk page that they are requesting others help out with. I just don't see how the tag helps us. Viriditas ( talk) 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ subst: uw-npa1}} |
Your following comment on my talk page is in my opinion a clear personal attack and quite rude to say someone's actions is uncouth. It's also against assuming good faith.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Westerosi456H#Warning_regarding_canvassing_rules
"Okay. In the future, I would say that asking others directly for comments like this is a little out of the ordinary and may be looked upon as uncouth." Westerosi456H ( talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Westerosi456H ( talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)"
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack Westerosi456H ( talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time you've templated me over the Tim Noakes article. Your uncollegial, non-AGF approach is crap. WP:DTR The defence Noakes published, and I cited, was originally put into the article as a reply to the MacAlpine criticism, but after extensive editing things got moved around and now it does not fit on the Grebe paragraph, in hindsight. There are many ways you could have approached this with me, but the way you did it sucks. Ratel 🌼 ( talk) 06:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Journal of Cosmology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Look, you nominated two of my articles for deletion, I believe you are wrong and I want to tell you why. I am not looking to hype a UFO story, I am trying to document it. I am not making any conclusions out of it, I just presented it as first hand witness told it. You were critical towards the sources used in your nomination for deletion, but all of these sources have first-hand witness accounts who talk about the event. Nobody can claims these events were unearthly, alien etc, they just appear to be unexplained from our current understanding. Franjo Tahy ( talk) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
you shared this article and said: "Excellent analysis. Provides some decent framing for our article and includes some choice identifiers that we knew were there but were missing."
my question is did you actually read that article or were you just told to share it by others who have an agenda? It's clearly a purile propaganda piece and is not even pretending to have any legitimate arguments against what actual experts and scientists are saying about serious issues of national security. AlirezaMohammadpasand ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how angry UFO true believers are. jps ( talk) 18:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
in very short time, you will be embarrased beyond belief when All grusch's claims turn out to be true and I hope at that time you look back and realize what repulsive and uncivil behaviour you were showingIt's a very short time until the great day of reckoning, so why not just sit back and wait, secure in the knowledge that you will be proven right and the rest of the world will be be proven wrong. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Why not just wait until the grand revelation comes to pass. Because it certainly will happen, won't it? And it won't be long at all. And when it happens, you can come back and say "I told you so" and be triumphantly vindicated. Until then, it's a huge waste of your energy to try to convert unbelievers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Not objecting to the outcome, objecting to the way you went about it. Care to WP:AFD it instead so it's not a unilateral action? lizthegrey ( talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Awww so you are advocating that MBSR should have the alt med banner, I get it now. Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] AT should get the mindfulness banner. MBSR is often practiced by psychiatrists... There are a lot of good papers on it. 2600:4040:9121:B00:7156:F061:F313:FFBC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have you actually read this talk page? We have been waiting for a very long time for those "good papers on it" and you say there are "a lot"? Why then do we keep getting papers suggested that aren't good. Bring on the "good papers"! Sgerbic (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
These comments were excluded from the conversation; your decision seems hasty and hasn't collected enough facts about the situation, in my opinion. 2600:4040:9142:D700:8890:E83C:FA02:832E ( talk) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi! What possible purpose do you think could be served by edit-warring at Domestic Muscovy duck? Please self-revert your last edit and start a talk-page discussion instead. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's move on.
|
---|
I am glad to get more editors editing and strengthening Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, but there are serious problems with the way you are currently approaching it. You appear to be disregarding the content of sources and Wikipedia policies on the basis that the article does not conform to your personal beliefs. Furthermore, several of your comments and edit summaries have been uncivil. This edit [20] is the most particularly problematic with respect to content and conduct. Also, it is highly irregular that you unilaterally executed a page move while it was under discussion. You need to immediately begin to work more collaboratively. Sennalen ( talk) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
In light of the conclusion of the AE thread and with a nod towards WP:GRAVEDANCING which I think is a bad cultural trait of this place I do not want to encourage, I'm closing this thread with no further action taken. jps ( talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Sennalen ( talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1187383180 -- it's one thing if you have actual evidence, but otherwise, I think that evidence-free accusations of antisemitism are a pretty cheap shot to take against someone. jp× g 🗯️ 20:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you check out this article and tell me if the sources are accurate? Two other ones not in the article, Bernd Aschenbach (2016) and Richard Peter Wade (2019) also support the idea that the supernova was visible in Japan in or around 1271 on 13 September. While I would like this to be true, as it would provide an explanation based in archaeastronomy for the rise of Nichiren Buddhism as a cultural force in Japan, it does appear to be somewhat of an extraordinary claim. The artist Kuniyoshi depicted the legend in the 1830s in this image. Some of the people pushing this idea could be off their rocker, but Bernd Aschenbach seems legit. It would make a great hook for a DYK that I'm working on, so I'm hoping you can take a look. I'm not going to get my hopes up, though. It's too good to be true (or potentially true). Viriditas ( talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas:Still thinking how best to handle this. I think I would include the COMPTEL Nature article, Pat Slane's response, and use the 2015 article as the starting point (with reference made to other distance and time measurements made therein). The CCO angle is a good one too, especially as there was some question as to whether there was a different pulsar that could have been the end product. Speculations on historical observations of it are best left to the WP:UNDUE purgatory of uncited literature. jps ( talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise that Wikipedia has no article on central compact objects. For those wanting to know, these are almost certainly nearby neutron stars at the center of supernova remnants which glow in the x-rays but seem to have no pulsations. Unlike magnetars or millisecond pulsars or x-ray binaries, etc., they don't have a large contingent of researchers working on them, but they're pretty fascinating things, IMHO. jps ( talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central compact object, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
New user just showed up. Please review these additions. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crucifixion of Jesus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BCorr| Брайен 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this interests you, but there's a discussion here about edits adding podcast content. I'm a fan of the Planetary Society, but I think this information is slightly unnecessary as 1) it duplicates info already in the article, 2) engages in a bit of crystalballing, and 3) the relevant info should simply be merged into the already existing sections. Just my opinion, but if you have time, please take a look. Viriditas ( talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to run across your comments about Diana Walsh Pasulka on WP:FTN, and I noticed that our article on Pasulka lists two of her books published by Oxford University Press.
Because over the past year I have found myself in the midst of arguing about the reliability of university press sources (with me arguing that a book shouldn't be presumed a reliabile source just because a respected university press publishes it), I have been considering writing a wiki-essay about this.
A university press has a peer review process, but the editorial board makes the final decision and can publish anyway even if the peer reviews are negative, because the board may have a goal of encouraging scholarly debate or publishing more books on particular topics.
Would you say these might be examples of unreliable sources published by a university press? I am looking for others, books you may know of that promote fringe topics. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Jps and @ Bon courage: I have started a very rough first attempt at User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses). Feel free to add examples, correct any errors I made, and add points that I am sure I have missed. Eventually I'd like to move it to the Wikipedia namespace but it's far from ready. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
American Cosmic touts the Oxford University Press imprint. I had the impression that readers could trust the editorial team at Oxford to filter manuscripts according to rigorous standards. The name, Oxford, was once a quality control guarantee. What happened here?Peters, Ted (2019). "American Cosmic: UFO's, Religion, Technology". Theology and Science. That was for jps' request for sources at FTN, but thought the quote appropriate here. fiveby( zero) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I gave them a ct alert a little while ago and see you gave a second after mine. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Lobster-eye optics is a very short article that wouldn't take up too much of your time. I could really use your help copyediting it, or at least an eagle eye from someone familiar with X-ray astronomy. My goal is to pass this as a DYK, but various issues have cropped up on the DYK nomination page. Note, I'm the reviewer, not the nominator. If you have any time just to glance at it, that would be appreciated. For what it is worth, my primary goal is to make this article readable and understandable to the average person visiting it from the DYK blurb. I think it's close to that goal, but I don't think it's quite there just yet. If there's a way you could help copyedit it for explanatory power and clarity, that would be great. I was hoping not to bother you, but I'm at my wits' end with this. I feel like I'm running into a brick wall trying to simplify the prose. Viriditas ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Like this? [27] jps ( talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harold E. Puthoff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Just in case you were unclear about this. jps ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that Kardecist spiritism be moved to another page, which may be of interest to you. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not cool to move articles except through the formal requested moves process. Skyerise ( talk) 19:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise ( talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You can keep offering P-Makoto olive branches... But as long as you continue to hold positions they disagree with they will just continue to spit in your face. Been there done that, sorry its that way. Wish it wasn't. Hope they know we all really do care about them even though we disagree. Do you know of anyone who might be willing to act as a mentor? I don't think they will accept help from anyone they've already interacted with but perhaps someone they perceive as a neutral could get through to them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This all just happened at virtually the same time, but after I saw this Special:Diff/1213598963 technically not TPG-compliant edit, I decided whatever and just removed my comment Special:Diff/1213599753 and was wondering if we can now just WP:MUTUAL remove your reply to it Special:Diff/1213600134, because it's not worth creating another "branch" in that discussion over this point IMO, better to try and keep the thread from spiraling outwards too far. As a bonus I won't have to explain at ANI that the initial comment was changed after my reply, which would create yet another branch. Levivich ( talk) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have some off-wiki work I need to attend to for a few days, so I will not be responding to some of our ongoing discussions right away. I care about continuing conversations with you, but I think a few days of emotional distance could be helpful for me. I'm encouraged that you are able to discuss some sources with other editors over at the Ammonihah talk page. You might find it useful to track discussions and their conclusions on the perennial sources list for LDS topics at Wikiproject Latter Day Saint movement (it's a work-in-progress). Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! This is a bit afield of our Ammonihah discussions, so I figured your talk page might be a better place for it. As I've said, I'm worried about creating an unworkable standard or chilling effect for religious sourcing in general, but I also agree with your concerns about "walled garden" scholarship that isn't meaningfully scrutinized.
I think it would be helpful to talk through a specific non-LDS example: The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology [28] contains a chapter on the Trinity written by Emmanuel Durand. Durand is a professor at the University of Fribourg, which was founded by Jesuits, and he's a member of the Dominican Order. Would you consider this more-or-less analogous to Oxford publishing Grant Hardy? Would you consider this a generally reliable or generally unreliable source, and for what kind of statements? Ghosts of Europa ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
You have repeatedly engaged in egregious, unprovoked incivility towards me. You have now added casting aspersions to BATTLEGROUND. You accuse me of POV pushing for providing a basis for why I disagree with you. Stop now. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
too personally. Describe how disagreeing with an editor who was reverted by multiple other editors as well is OWN. If you can't then don't throw out aspersions. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
self-evidentis peculiar—I'm merely asking you to cite your sources. Right now, the only person to express explicit POV is jps, who has declared some scholars unworthy of consideration because of their religious identity and others
weirdosfor using scholarship published in reliable sources. I wonder if you are attempting to impose a POV based on your own beliefs. The lack of self-awareness is palpable. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero talk 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sigh. A few LDS Church scholars account for this apparent discrepancy by arguing that the Nephite calendar was a lunar calendar (354.37 days in a year) during that time period which equates to 582.12 solar years, and that the Lehi departure was just prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem circa 587 BC. The reference in 3 Nephi is referring to Lehi's first leaving of Jerusalem to receive his prophetic calling.
[1]
[2]
[3]
This is Mormon apologetics full stop. The Jewish calendar is lunisolar. Do with that information what you will.
jps (
talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
jps (
talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References
...but I don't want the bludgeoning simply transferred to my talk. The editors at the article should treat that as any other edit request from someone with a COI. valereee ( talk) 15:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cosmology, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1068491098. And comments welcome at its talk page if you detect obvious problems or omissions... — Paleo Neonate – 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your deletions from The Cosmic Serpent because your rationale for removing the material makes no sense. A crazy as Narby sounds, your edit makes it seem like you didn't even review what you were deleting, as the cited material you removed criticizes Narby. Further, the material adheres to various guidelines pertaining to synopses for non-fiction articles. You cited WP:REDFLAG which makes no sense for two reasons: one, the synopsis is written within the context of the author's stated claims, and two, biophysicist Jacques Dubochet debunks Narby's assertions within the same section, fulfilling the remit of REDFLAG. Again, it really sounds like you aren't reading what you are editing. Viriditas ( talk) 11:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: I'm confused
That makes two of us. Consider
your diff which kicked off this conversation. Can you see that you (re-)introduced two sources? One was Jay Griffiths and other was Narby's follow-up book. I also don't understand your distinction between "supporting Narby" and "citing Narby" vis-a-vis Jay Griffiths.
jps (
talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Further, do you admit that the source I removed was not to Dubochet?You clearly removed Dubochet in this diff. I can't respond to your other comments because they make no sense. Either there is a language barrier or you honestly don't understand anything I've said. I'm not attached to the articles in question, and I would seriously recommend redirecting them to their parent temporarily. However, you are doing an endrun around the current discussion and that's why I reverted. How about letting the discussion play out? Viriditas ( talk) 12:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Trying to figure out what is going on here, I think that the Dubochet criticism that Narby is quoting might be found in this French-language book: [1]. However, I cannot confirm that as I do not have the book and no libraries near me have it. Can you confirm this? If so, that would be a good source for criticism, but I would appreciate not relying on Narby's translation as, at a minimum, this would be a slight conflict of interest, I'd argue. jps ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Talk:Sun#Formation_prose_structure concerning the FA prose in the formation subsection. Viriditas ( talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
So how to approach this? I respect the OpenStax team for doing a pretty good job of summarizing at an appropriate level the state-of-the-art understanding of astronomy. They just updated with 2e, so we could start by seeing the differences in emphasis or character between our star formation article and their chapter. jps ( talk) 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi ජපස, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, ( t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
What in the world is driving this? Even claiming that an in-depth investigation is an opinion piece. FTN? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Not to get all philosophical or anything, but Wikipedia has cultivated a culture that looks at policies as though they are gifts from god. I understand why WP:BLP is as stringent as it is. There was a time when Wikipedia was a literal defamation engine. But we've moved well past that era and there are nuances that were not captured when the policy was being formulated which have come to the fore. There is a culture here that it's okay to basically be a WP:JERK here at Wikipedia as long as it is in the service of keeping BLP sourcing to a "high level". The problem is, the editorial judgement of what makes a source "high level" is always contextual. And here we are. jps ( talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite to talk [2] jps. Don't worry, I didn't think you were accusing me of being a member of GSoW, I accurately interpreted what you meant to say. I've explained my side of things as I see them on Roxy's page [3] and if you (and perhaps @ Doug Weller:) would share your perspective I think that could be really helpful for all of us. Also open to any questions you still have about me or why I made certain edits. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually am doing thatI'll line up to purchase a copy. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to bring back the ESI Table in Earth Similarity Index article for research purposes. Nicholas Herak ( talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically, we're trying to determine which laws dictate who can delete your comment on the Barbro Karlén talk page. Thank you. LightProof1995 ( talk) 07:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and express my appreciation for your work keeping the woo on Wikipedia to an appropriate minimum. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, I appreciate your support at Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods#RfC about mentioning of climate change, but you're being a bit disruptive. Yes, some editors there have put forward very poor reasons, made obviously flawed statements, but I fear you might be getting close to the point where you might accidentally breach WP:NPA. I've explained there in a recent reply why I felt I needed to start that RfC, as the most neutral way to get attention to the issue. I know the whole thing became a discussion that is very frustrating to participate in, and even I resorted to some occasional cynicism, e.g. to deal with accusations that this was "off topic". But don't let this absurd discussion drag you into a useless fight! So let me give you some advice: Keep WP:COOL, spend some time away from the article and in other areas, and come back in a few days. It helps! (I know you are a much more senior editor than I am, but that won't stop me from giving you advice :P) I promise I will keep an eye on the page in the meantime :) -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a friendly head's up that a discussion was started on the reliable source noticebaord to determine if the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is a reliable source. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, so I wanted to let you know about it and say you may participate here. Have a good day! Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, and not that it matters much, but a quick analysis with Stellarium reveals for that date, time, and location that Jupiter was actually 9 degrees above the horizon. So thanks for removing those unsourced "facts." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment at my talk about my shepherding, but I also want very much to thank you for your contributions in that effort. Your input helped a lot, and it made all the difference. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The Death Barnstar | ||
Hello jps,
Thank you for your contributions to Reincarnation. Excellent contributions to articles about death earn this wicked award. "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure." -- Theodore Roosevelt LightProof1995 ( talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, jps!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
ජපස, if you meant to fail this GA nomination in your review, you didn't finish the job. At the moment, the review remains open and unresolved. The discussion at WT:GAN at the end of September does not appear to have affected the review one way or the other.
To complete the failure process, please see WP:GAN/I#FAIL for the remaining steps. If that is what you wish to do, I'm happy to help if anything is unclear.
If you have another solution in mind for this GAN review, please let me know your intentions, and I'll see what can be done. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Wilson (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your posts here and here, I favor inclusion criteria for both List of reported UFO sightings and UFO sightings in the United States such that the listed events/topics/things have their own, stand-alone enWiki article. That criterion should go far in improving the articles by excluding non-notable, stubby, some-guy-mentioned-something material. I am willing to do my part to keep the ball rolling, as you wrote, by starting the process, but I am uncertain how best to proceed. Would you recommend a full-blown RfC at one/both pages, or simple (yeah, right) Talk page discussions to achieve consensus? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think a discussion doesn't need to be initiated until you encounter resistance. jps ( talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Isn't this worth a deletion? Yann ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding If I was going to write a textbook on UFOs (and I actually am doing that
from
here, is there any good news on that front? A year-long, off-continent sabbatical is coming up in a few months (not mine, my wife's) and I'm lining up things to read/explore/drink.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Your notice of the Alderney UFO case on WP:FRINGE noticeboard constituted canvassing according to WP:CANVASS, specifically WP:INAPPNOTE. Your audience was chosen specifically as you believed they would support your point of view, and your message was not neutral. Please avoid this in future.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I mentioned you in an ANI post regarding Boynamedsue's editing behavior at the AfD. Here is the ANI post: [5]. Regards, --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am wondering if " Giant of Castelnau" should be posted at FTN. The claims are outrageous. In fact looking at the discussion on this article's talk page, I'm thinking this is an AfD candidate. The sources are dated in the 1890's except for one 2017 paper, which discusses the mythology of giants over time. So, that paper does not specifically pertain to the topic. According to the talk page comments, there has been no discussion of this topic since the 1890's. So, what do you think? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I found that comment amusing so I changed my signature. If you don't like it let me know and I'll change it back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you writing about me on a related off-site site? If so, why haven't you alerted me to this? I know that's not required but, come on, Wikipedian courtesy? And if not, apologies, but someone apparently has been since the Leary thing happened yesterday and is not willing to "accuse" me of things to my face on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Please read it before linking it again. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've bestowed me status I don't deserve, but no problem. The Grusch article is still in the huge and messy stage, so I'll just avert my eyes for the time being. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your indefatigable, long-term efforts to promote encyclopaedic values at David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims and many, many other places. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
Hello. I noticed you mentioned the Pioneer anomaly here (David Grusch talk page). I remember following that via our Wikipedia article. I started following it perhaps a year before it was solved. It was totally mind-blowing. What could it be?? Then it was satisfyingly solved. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Beatrice Tinsley isn't in the greatest of shape. I want to expand the material on her contributions to astronomy. There are three major parts missing from her professional work: the astronomers whose work she challenged (and possibly superseded, although their sister articles like the big crunch do not mention this), the work she promoted, and finally the work that eventually subsumed her own. I don't know how knowledgeable you are about her, but perhaps you have some advice for moving forward. I can do what I can do with the sources in the further reading section, but it would be nice to have some suggestions from someone in the field. For example, you could make some recommendations on concepts that the bio should mention, etc. Viriditas ( talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh gee, I'm not sure at all about that one. I think in general the stellar populations, metallicities, and densities of ellipticals would tend to favor fewer planets than bluer, metal-rich, un-dense counterparts. But when you've got a trillion stars, it would be folly to argue "no planets". jps ( talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
do you think that looking for life or intelligence on exoplanets might be a lost cause, similar to how SETI has historically looked for radio waves?It is always a good idea to keep open the possibility that the answer to "Where are they?" is "Nowhere." By the same token, you are guaranteed to never find anything if you don't look. Attempts to assign values for a Bayesian prior on these questions, I think, are fraught. David Kipping, I think, explains that point the best. I do not begrudge the SETI folks at, for example, Breakthrough Listen their searches for signals. It's a high-risk/high-reward kind of endeavor that we humans cannot help but engage in. Moving beyond anything but the question of what a technosignature is and how we might decide we've actually seen one is something I'm not prepared to do. I thus get pretty uncomfortable when anyone makes any claims about how life (let alone intelligent life), if it exists beyond our little world, behaves generally out there in the Universe. I also think that science fiction has a somewhat outsized influence on the way SETI people and scientists generally have framed questions and looked for certain phenomena in astrophysics. I would argue that one particular episode of Star Trek: TNG is probably the main source of inspiration behind a minor fad in the scientific literature that tries to model Dyson spheres/Dyson swarms etc. Is this a good way to go about scientific advancement? Eh... I don't know. When you have one datapoint, it is hard to extrapolate. The fact is that in science, it is extremely unusual to see one thing that is never repeated again. The closest I can think of is the Oh-My-God particle consideration of which has yielded some interesting follow-up science though nothing that has yet matched the energy of that monster. Likely what is going on is that we don't actually know what to look for. Let's assume there are pieces of evidence permeating the cosmos pointing to an answer in the negative to the question "Are we alone?" -- my guess is that we are almost certainly still unclear about what is the easiest observation to convincingly make that case and we probably won't really understand how and why we are going about it in the wrong way until we actually make the discovery. For hundreds of years people correctly proposed that planets were probably orbiting most/all the other stars. It was within my lifetime that such observations were finally done to confirm that exoplanets exist and it turns out that the easiest ones to discover look nothing like our own. Which is not to say that no exoplanet system is like our own, and, in fact, our kind of system may very well be somewhat common -- but it's just harder to observe. I kinda like the analogy there.
Yeah, Neil is great, but he sometimes runs afoul of certain Gell-Mann Amnesia issues similar to Kaku, but, I would argue, not as severe. Sean Carroll is a personal hero of mine even though I find his staunch advocacy for the Many worlds hypothesis to be a bit bewildering. jps ( talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | |
For the record, I value your opinion! I like being pushed on my ideas and engaging in good-faith discussion because it helps me better understand my own position and arguments. Thanks Curbon7 ( talk) 21:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC) |
Please avoid making personal attacks, as you did here [10]. Having failed to follow that guideline, please strike. Thanks! Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The question of the SARS-CoV-2 origin: whether it was a zoonotic spillover from a wet market, or an engineered virus that escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is seemingly a debate that will never go away. Most interestingly, while scientists with specific domain expertise seem to be building a consensus towards the former, public opinion appears to be trending towards the latter. This delta between expert and popular opinion has been helped along by the frothy discourse in mainstream and social media, with most figures that we cover in this podcast dead-set certain that it came from a lab.
Most recently, Sam Harris hosted on his Making Sense podcast the molecular biologist Alina Chan and. science writer Matt Ridley, spokespersons for the lab leak case, and authors of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19". To a layperson, and certainly to Sam, they put forward a rather watertight case. Intrinsic to the arguments advanced were the ideas that (a) experts in the area were refusing to engage with and unable to answer their arguments, and (b) a strong implication that there is a conspiracy of silence among virologists not just in China but internationally, to suppress the lab leak hypothesis.
So, as a case study in the public understanding of science, it seems like a pretty pickle indeed. To help unravel the pickle(?) in this somewhat special episode, we are joined by three virologists who are amply qualified to address the topic; both in terms of the evidence and whether they are involved in a conspiracy of silence.
Kristian Andersen is a Professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research. He focuses on the relationship between host and pathogen, using sequencing, fieldwork, experimentation, and computational biology methods. He has spearheaded large international collaborations investigating the emergence, spread and evolution of deadly pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus.
Prof Michael Worobey, is the head of the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. His work focuses on the genomes of viruses, using molecular and computational biology, to understand the origins, emergence and control of pandemics. Recently, his interdisciplinary work on SARS-CoV-2 has shed light on how and when the virus originated and ignited the COVID-19 pandemic in China and how SARS-CoV-2 emerged and took hold in North America and Europe.
Prof Edward "Eddie" Holmes, is an NHMRC Leadership Fellow & Professor of Virology at the Faculty of Medicine and Health at Sydney University, a member of the Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a Fellow of The Royal Society. He is known for his work on the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases, particularly the mechanisms by which RNA viruses jump species boundaries to emerge in humans and other animals. He has studied the emergence and spread of such pathogens as SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, dengue virus, HIV, hepatitis C virus, myxoma virus, RHDV and Yersinia pestis.
All three researchers have specialist expertise and decades of experience directly applicable to tracking viruses and their adaption to humans, and, fair to say, are fairly eminent in their fields (Eddie in particular!). Further, they are among the relatively small set of researchers collecting and analysing primary evidence on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, communicating their findings in top-ranked journals, including Nature and Science.
In this episode, Chris and Matt put to this trio of Professors the claims raised by lab leak advocates to see what these (damn conspirators) experts have to say for themselves.
No doubt. Sometimes the people who are arguing most vociferously that it has to be lab leak or that scientists should pay attention to their minority reports tip their hand by implying that they think all scientists are in it for the grift. No, honey, scientists are motivated to find the truth. They aren't funded to conform to a political agenda. jps ( talk) 11:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Have you read this [11] by Massimo Pigliucci? There is also this [12] written by him. But, the second linked article seems to be a topic that we deal with on Wikipedia fairly regularly. If you want more fun then take a look at this [13]. Well, now you have your assigned reading for the week :>) --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The impetus for the above is this new article I am working on in my user space [14]. Not sure when I will make it a main space article. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unidentified flying object, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jacobs.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello There, I just want some clarification on the very long winded discussion related to Adragon De Mello's projected IQ of 400. I don't know how much of the discussion you read or who you agreed with or what not. I just want clarify that I believe that following statement is sufficient, Adragon's father claimed Adragon had a projected IQ of 400 based on a test administered to him at 4 years old. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
In the discussion we went into the nature of projected IQ's and whether they are accruate or what not, who can accurately access or divine whether a child's projected IQ is legitimate. And acknowledging that a projected IQ is not an actual IQ. There was already consensus that the sentence, followed by this sentence was sufficient, "However when his father enrolled him in Popper-Keizer, a school for gifted children, standardized tests Adragon took suggested he was around the 85th percentile for students his age, where most students enrolled in such schools where in the 95th percentile."
My Interlocutor in the discussion asserted several things which where WP:OR, such as that Adragon had an IQ of 115 based on a test that wasn't an IQ test,that Adragon wasn't a prodigy because he had help with college homework at 11.That Adragon's father was claiming that he had an IQ 400 before administering a test to him.
I believe either the 400 IQ claim should not be mentioned at all, or should be mentioned as a claim made by his father as WP:NOTE. It should not be "disputed" by people who do not have the expertise to dispute it and instead want to editorialize something they are not familiar with. And if they wish to dispute it, why not investigate the test administered? (Again they are many proposterously high projected IQ's for children out there like Sho Yano.
Best regards 68.189.2.14 ( talk) 68.189.2.14 ( talk) 22:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier deleted my evidence section. It could not have been an edit conflict, because my name was in the edit summary. And his statement, paraphrased: "People are making evidence-free allegations".
Is there evidence for me to allege that Selfstudier is deliberately trying to gaslight me? Walt Yoder ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to privately comment as a peanut gallery in your current discussion on Zionism, race and genetics on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. You're coming across quite hot there, calling people "numbskulls" and you're forgetting to assume good faith in slinging accusations around. I get that's a contentious topic and it's not one I want to go near at all as someone with no expertise, but I think it's perhaps worth stepping back from this one slightly (and consider a strikethrough on some of your harsher phrasing, perhaps). Warrenmck ( talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure where I called out a commenter for not reading the sources. And, to be clear, I don't view my blocks and bans as a mark of pride. The idea that stepping away from highly contentious places will allow me to regain perspective is an interesting one. I'm not sure I've seen it borne out empirically, but Wikibreaks are nice things, for sure! Perhaps I'm overdue for one! jps ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Tryptofish! The two comments of the first quote are completely unnecessary to the meaning of my post. I redacted them. The second one, I guess, is personalizing because I am accusing the opponents of operating differently than WP:ENC? I'm trying to see how it is personalizing because I would like to do better. jps ( talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
[17] Does taking out "some bizarre parallel universe" help make it more civil in your eyes? jps ( talk) 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
References
I don't think any progress is possible when discussion occurs at the essay TP. Discussion is also marred by the fact that most editors have zero idea what a citation index is or what it means to be "selective": they just trust the claim that certain indices only contain "the best" journals and do not realize the implications of auto-notability conferred by inclusion. I think a well-thought-out RfC that explicitly focuses on the aspects that conflict with PAGs would be helpful:
I think now we have the perfect opportunity of fixing NJOURNALS: we have the attention and agreement of several external editors. It's the only way the local consensus is going to be overridden, clearly the NJOURNALS authors are beyond the reach of reason. It needs to be something short and to the point. I'd suggest "Are the criteria 1.b and 1.c acceptable for determining notability?" Tercer ( talk) 07:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ජපස,
The AFD on this article closed as "No consensus". So, moving it to Draft space was an improper and irregular editing decision that was bound to quickly be reverted which is what happened. Please do not act against the consensus of an AFD closure even if your personal opinion differs from that outcome. Doing so persistently could lead to a partial editing block from the article or some more severe action. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
I love you, dude, but this was not helpful. The primary contributor is already asking other editors for help expanding the older aspects of the topic, and they even posted a preliminary outline on the talk page that they are requesting others help out with. I just don't see how the tag helps us. Viriditas ( talk) 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
{{ subst: uw-npa1}} |
Your following comment on my talk page is in my opinion a clear personal attack and quite rude to say someone's actions is uncouth. It's also against assuming good faith.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Westerosi456H#Warning_regarding_canvassing_rules
"Okay. In the future, I would say that asking others directly for comments like this is a little out of the ordinary and may be looked upon as uncouth." Westerosi456H ( talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Westerosi456H ( talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)"
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack Westerosi456H ( talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time you've templated me over the Tim Noakes article. Your uncollegial, non-AGF approach is crap. WP:DTR The defence Noakes published, and I cited, was originally put into the article as a reply to the MacAlpine criticism, but after extensive editing things got moved around and now it does not fit on the Grebe paragraph, in hindsight. There are many ways you could have approached this with me, but the way you did it sucks. Ratel 🌼 ( talk) 06:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Journal of Cosmology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Look, you nominated two of my articles for deletion, I believe you are wrong and I want to tell you why. I am not looking to hype a UFO story, I am trying to document it. I am not making any conclusions out of it, I just presented it as first hand witness told it. You were critical towards the sources used in your nomination for deletion, but all of these sources have first-hand witness accounts who talk about the event. Nobody can claims these events were unearthly, alien etc, they just appear to be unexplained from our current understanding. Franjo Tahy ( talk) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
you shared this article and said: "Excellent analysis. Provides some decent framing for our article and includes some choice identifiers that we knew were there but were missing."
my question is did you actually read that article or were you just told to share it by others who have an agenda? It's clearly a purile propaganda piece and is not even pretending to have any legitimate arguments against what actual experts and scientists are saying about serious issues of national security. AlirezaMohammadpasand ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how angry UFO true believers are. jps ( talk) 18:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
in very short time, you will be embarrased beyond belief when All grusch's claims turn out to be true and I hope at that time you look back and realize what repulsive and uncivil behaviour you were showingIt's a very short time until the great day of reckoning, so why not just sit back and wait, secure in the knowledge that you will be proven right and the rest of the world will be be proven wrong. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Why not just wait until the grand revelation comes to pass. Because it certainly will happen, won't it? And it won't be long at all. And when it happens, you can come back and say "I told you so" and be triumphantly vindicated. Until then, it's a huge waste of your energy to try to convert unbelievers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Not objecting to the outcome, objecting to the way you went about it. Care to WP:AFD it instead so it's not a unilateral action? lizthegrey ( talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Awww so you are advocating that MBSR should have the alt med banner, I get it now. Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] AT should get the mindfulness banner. MBSR is often practiced by psychiatrists... There are a lot of good papers on it. 2600:4040:9121:B00:7156:F061:F313:FFBC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have you actually read this talk page? We have been waiting for a very long time for those "good papers on it" and you say there are "a lot"? Why then do we keep getting papers suggested that aren't good. Bring on the "good papers"! Sgerbic (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
These comments were excluded from the conversation; your decision seems hasty and hasn't collected enough facts about the situation, in my opinion. 2600:4040:9142:D700:8890:E83C:FA02:832E ( talk) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi! What possible purpose do you think could be served by edit-warring at Domestic Muscovy duck? Please self-revert your last edit and start a talk-page discussion instead. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's move on.
|
---|
I am glad to get more editors editing and strengthening Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, but there are serious problems with the way you are currently approaching it. You appear to be disregarding the content of sources and Wikipedia policies on the basis that the article does not conform to your personal beliefs. Furthermore, several of your comments and edit summaries have been uncivil. This edit [20] is the most particularly problematic with respect to content and conduct. Also, it is highly irregular that you unilaterally executed a page move while it was under discussion. You need to immediately begin to work more collaboratively. Sennalen ( talk) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
In light of the conclusion of the AE thread and with a nod towards WP:GRAVEDANCING which I think is a bad cultural trait of this place I do not want to encourage, I'm closing this thread with no further action taken. jps ( talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Sennalen ( talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1187383180 -- it's one thing if you have actual evidence, but otherwise, I think that evidence-free accusations of antisemitism are a pretty cheap shot to take against someone. jp× g 🗯️ 20:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you check out this article and tell me if the sources are accurate? Two other ones not in the article, Bernd Aschenbach (2016) and Richard Peter Wade (2019) also support the idea that the supernova was visible in Japan in or around 1271 on 13 September. While I would like this to be true, as it would provide an explanation based in archaeastronomy for the rise of Nichiren Buddhism as a cultural force in Japan, it does appear to be somewhat of an extraordinary claim. The artist Kuniyoshi depicted the legend in the 1830s in this image. Some of the people pushing this idea could be off their rocker, but Bernd Aschenbach seems legit. It would make a great hook for a DYK that I'm working on, so I'm hoping you can take a look. I'm not going to get my hopes up, though. It's too good to be true (or potentially true). Viriditas ( talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas:Still thinking how best to handle this. I think I would include the COMPTEL Nature article, Pat Slane's response, and use the 2015 article as the starting point (with reference made to other distance and time measurements made therein). The CCO angle is a good one too, especially as there was some question as to whether there was a different pulsar that could have been the end product. Speculations on historical observations of it are best left to the WP:UNDUE purgatory of uncited literature. jps ( talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise that Wikipedia has no article on central compact objects. For those wanting to know, these are almost certainly nearby neutron stars at the center of supernova remnants which glow in the x-rays but seem to have no pulsations. Unlike magnetars or millisecond pulsars or x-ray binaries, etc., they don't have a large contingent of researchers working on them, but they're pretty fascinating things, IMHO. jps ( talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central compact object, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
New user just showed up. Please review these additions. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crucifixion of Jesus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BCorr| Брайен 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this interests you, but there's a discussion here about edits adding podcast content. I'm a fan of the Planetary Society, but I think this information is slightly unnecessary as 1) it duplicates info already in the article, 2) engages in a bit of crystalballing, and 3) the relevant info should simply be merged into the already existing sections. Just my opinion, but if you have time, please take a look. Viriditas ( talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to run across your comments about Diana Walsh Pasulka on WP:FTN, and I noticed that our article on Pasulka lists two of her books published by Oxford University Press.
Because over the past year I have found myself in the midst of arguing about the reliability of university press sources (with me arguing that a book shouldn't be presumed a reliabile source just because a respected university press publishes it), I have been considering writing a wiki-essay about this.
A university press has a peer review process, but the editorial board makes the final decision and can publish anyway even if the peer reviews are negative, because the board may have a goal of encouraging scholarly debate or publishing more books on particular topics.
Would you say these might be examples of unreliable sources published by a university press? I am looking for others, books you may know of that promote fringe topics. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Jps and @ Bon courage: I have started a very rough first attempt at User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses). Feel free to add examples, correct any errors I made, and add points that I am sure I have missed. Eventually I'd like to move it to the Wikipedia namespace but it's far from ready. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
American Cosmic touts the Oxford University Press imprint. I had the impression that readers could trust the editorial team at Oxford to filter manuscripts according to rigorous standards. The name, Oxford, was once a quality control guarantee. What happened here?Peters, Ted (2019). "American Cosmic: UFO's, Religion, Technology". Theology and Science. That was for jps' request for sources at FTN, but thought the quote appropriate here. fiveby( zero) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I gave them a ct alert a little while ago and see you gave a second after mine. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Lobster-eye optics is a very short article that wouldn't take up too much of your time. I could really use your help copyediting it, or at least an eagle eye from someone familiar with X-ray astronomy. My goal is to pass this as a DYK, but various issues have cropped up on the DYK nomination page. Note, I'm the reviewer, not the nominator. If you have any time just to glance at it, that would be appreciated. For what it is worth, my primary goal is to make this article readable and understandable to the average person visiting it from the DYK blurb. I think it's close to that goal, but I don't think it's quite there just yet. If there's a way you could help copyedit it for explanatory power and clarity, that would be great. I was hoping not to bother you, but I'm at my wits' end with this. I feel like I'm running into a brick wall trying to simplify the prose. Viriditas ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Like this? [27] jps ( talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harold E. Puthoff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Just in case you were unclear about this. jps ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that Kardecist spiritism be moved to another page, which may be of interest to you. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not cool to move articles except through the formal requested moves process. Skyerise ( talk) 19:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise ( talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You can keep offering P-Makoto olive branches... But as long as you continue to hold positions they disagree with they will just continue to spit in your face. Been there done that, sorry its that way. Wish it wasn't. Hope they know we all really do care about them even though we disagree. Do you know of anyone who might be willing to act as a mentor? I don't think they will accept help from anyone they've already interacted with but perhaps someone they perceive as a neutral could get through to them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This all just happened at virtually the same time, but after I saw this Special:Diff/1213598963 technically not TPG-compliant edit, I decided whatever and just removed my comment Special:Diff/1213599753 and was wondering if we can now just WP:MUTUAL remove your reply to it Special:Diff/1213600134, because it's not worth creating another "branch" in that discussion over this point IMO, better to try and keep the thread from spiraling outwards too far. As a bonus I won't have to explain at ANI that the initial comment was changed after my reply, which would create yet another branch. Levivich ( talk) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have some off-wiki work I need to attend to for a few days, so I will not be responding to some of our ongoing discussions right away. I care about continuing conversations with you, but I think a few days of emotional distance could be helpful for me. I'm encouraged that you are able to discuss some sources with other editors over at the Ammonihah talk page. You might find it useful to track discussions and their conclusions on the perennial sources list for LDS topics at Wikiproject Latter Day Saint movement (it's a work-in-progress). Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! This is a bit afield of our Ammonihah discussions, so I figured your talk page might be a better place for it. As I've said, I'm worried about creating an unworkable standard or chilling effect for religious sourcing in general, but I also agree with your concerns about "walled garden" scholarship that isn't meaningfully scrutinized.
I think it would be helpful to talk through a specific non-LDS example: The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology [28] contains a chapter on the Trinity written by Emmanuel Durand. Durand is a professor at the University of Fribourg, which was founded by Jesuits, and he's a member of the Dominican Order. Would you consider this more-or-less analogous to Oxford publishing Grant Hardy? Would you consider this a generally reliable or generally unreliable source, and for what kind of statements? Ghosts of Europa ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
You have repeatedly engaged in egregious, unprovoked incivility towards me. You have now added casting aspersions to BATTLEGROUND. You accuse me of POV pushing for providing a basis for why I disagree with you. Stop now. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
too personally. Describe how disagreeing with an editor who was reverted by multiple other editors as well is OWN. If you can't then don't throw out aspersions. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
self-evidentis peculiar—I'm merely asking you to cite your sources. Right now, the only person to express explicit POV is jps, who has declared some scholars unworthy of consideration because of their religious identity and others
weirdosfor using scholarship published in reliable sources. I wonder if you are attempting to impose a POV based on your own beliefs. The lack of self-awareness is palpable. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero talk 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sigh. A few LDS Church scholars account for this apparent discrepancy by arguing that the Nephite calendar was a lunar calendar (354.37 days in a year) during that time period which equates to 582.12 solar years, and that the Lehi departure was just prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem circa 587 BC. The reference in 3 Nephi is referring to Lehi's first leaving of Jerusalem to receive his prophetic calling.
[1]
[2]
[3]
This is Mormon apologetics full stop. The Jewish calendar is lunisolar. Do with that information what you will.
jps (
talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
jps (
talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References