User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

YEC Links[edit]

I'm just going to start a thread on your page where I dump links I found into it - I hope that's ok. If you like them, please indicate this and I'll go ahead and insert them. I'll update this as I find more - there is no precendence to the links - just trying various search strings and when something pops, I'll paste here. Ckruschke (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The first link is great, but on its basis we would really have to pare down the text. The NewRepublic, Mother Jones, and Slate articles are relevant only for the Ham/Nye debate. The rest of the links don't work for establishing proper WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you aren't being very agreeable...  ;-)
My intention on the New Republic, Mother Jones, and Slate articles was to again corroborate "what YEC's think". Since Ham is a leading proponent of YEC, the author's description of what Ham thinks would this be a description of what YEC's think - right? Also, when I read the articles, there were several places (I thought) where the author made more generic comments about what YEC's as a whole think beyond the specific comments about Ham. Did I just dream that? Finally, I thought that the two Christian links helped establish that the YEC thought is more than just what ICR and AiG think or does this not work. I guess I'll keep looking. Ckruschke (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
No, Ham is only relevant for what Ham thinks. We have a biography page on him that you can use those links for. As for YEC as a whole, you'll have to find sources which speak to the entire movement, not just one person. What do you think the authors are saying about the "movement" as a whole? Be specific. jps (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right about the MJ and NR articles - I guess it was wishful thinking. However, I was able to re-find in the Slate article the paragraph-length discussion about kinds that goes beyond Ham (3rd para from bottom). I'll keep looking. Ckruschke (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Ckruschke (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
These all appear to be human interest stories. We need sources that show data on what YECs believe. They don't do a good job of distinguishing what is a belief held by a single person and what is a commonly-held belief. jps (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Trevor James Constable[edit]

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a second look at this AfD? It's just that I've overhauled the article and I think (hope) you'd find it satisfactory now.

Thank you in advance. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young Earth creationism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Hydra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I know both of us are in a challenging situation - thanks for your willings to work it through. SAS81 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I thank you for being willing to listen. It is a seemingly rare quality on Wikipedia. Don't be too off-put by the rhetoric that flies thick on the talkpages. Beneath it all, there are very good points being made by almost everyone commenting. If it all works out well, we'll get a series of prose that, if not favorable completely, at least will avoid some major pitfalls. I think we've already made progress. See you on the talkpage! jps (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk: If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO sightings in outer space[edit]


I see you've been editing since 2005, so I'm sure it is an honesty mistake. Please remove tag -

Article was restored through DRV. Thanks. Valoem talk contrib 01:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Crucifixion of Jesus[edit]

Joshua/ScienceApologist - I have reverted your edit that removed the section title for crucifixion phenomena. For starters, this type of edit probably should have started on the talk page. Second, your edit summary was patently false. "...none of these phenomena are attested elsewhere. They are simply Christian scripture"? The article explicitly describes the multiple multiple external sources (Julius Africanus, Origen, Phlegon, Thallus). Only the tearing of the temple veil is unique to the gospel accounts. Even so, that's no reason to convolute the section header. Ἀλήθεια 11:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Crucifixion of Jesus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. your removal of the word phenomena has garnered zero support on the talk page, where you have as of yet failed to engage. further edits in the same vein constitute edit warring Ἀλήθεια 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly zero support. As noted on the Talk page, I too am having some problems with the dead rising from graves termed as "reported phenomena" ---using the Bible as a WP:PRIMARY source. Do you have any reliable sources that call the darkness, earthquakes, temple veil, and dead come back to life as "phenomena" that were reported? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO Fringe[edit]

I understand you have an issue with many of these articles. Make me a list I'll take care of it and merge into List of minor UFO sightings when ready. Valoem talk contrib 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I go through the current lists and look for the poorly sourced ones is all. jps (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "pseudoscience" in general[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience that might be of interest to you, regarding the effective extend of the the broad interpretation of pseudoscience and fringe science, and specifically what does and does not qualify as such, and I thought you might be interested in perhaps taking part in the discussion. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember you mentioning in the past a book by James Randi on the broad topic of pseudoscience which might be considered as one of an encyclopedic nature. If you have access to it, and if it gives much attention to chiropractic as a pseudoscience, that might be very useful information for the arbitrators in this matter. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it violates WP:UNCONF because it is a confusing and extremely lengthy username.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A bureaucrat signed off on this username. WP:UNCONF is a rather vague rationale for objecting to a username I've been using for almost a year without many problems and with a great deal of happy solutions to other problems in the past that I will not be discussing on-wiki. jps (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you should try to WP:USURP JPS, which has just a user page edit eight years ago. Lowercase jps also seems usurpable. vzaak 22:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit it is kinda hard to remember the alphabet soup name, and initials are a lot easier to remember. It took me a while to even find a link to your name before when I was looking to locate you for the comment I made above. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
While I regret the inconvenience it caused you, John, there are reasons I decided on this username and they are still extant. Unfortunately, using a short-and-sweet username will cause me problems, I'm afraid. If there were alternative ways to maintain the benefits gained through this username without the confusion on your end, I'd avail myself of them, but, alas, I have not discovered such a solution yet. I'm happy to entertain other proposals, though. jps (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
My real name doesn't look much like this name either, so I of all people can't argue that making it harder to find your name, either real name or username, has its benefits. But, if you think it appropriate, I think a name like Martin Gardner might not be objected to by bureaucrats either, and I don't think at this point anyone is likely to think you're claiming to be him, just taking it as an homage. If not his name, of course, that of any other similar deceased person might work. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a nice thought, but I don't think an identifiable username like Martin Gardner will solve the problems I was facing as well as this username does. jps (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cold fusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The Law of One (Ra Material) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
With my apologies for the template. I can't stand this article, but your pruning goes too far. If, at the Deletion Review, the judgment is that the article should be burned with nucular fire (or something like that), then the current version actually bears that out. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument not based in any policy. While the page should not be blanked, we should still abide by the normal practices of Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. How do you judge when a "pruning goes too far"? Are we just supposed to take your word for it? jps (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, YOU'RE JPS! Now I get it. Great. Well, you've been around here long enough to know when you're acting like a jerk for the hell of it. You are. You're edit warring, and your claim to policies about RS and all that are no excuse for edit warring. There's no BLP violation, there's no vandalism--you can hardly claim to protect the victims of the Ra channel. And certainly someone with your history here shouldn't play the "not an argument based in any policy" card: one would have thought that you would have developed plenty of common sense, here and elsewhere, and that you would know the value of not trying to find justification for every edit in policy.

    As for "when pruning goes too far", who really gives a flying fuck? You cut the hell out of that article, and you know it, and next time you have my blessing to do so--but that next time ought to be after the Deletion review. Manners, please. OMG there's nothing about manners in the policy! Maybe, but there's plenty about edit warring, and you have already violated that, even if you haven't broken 3R. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You reverted. You are guilty of edit warring even if you haven't "broken 3R". You shouldn't be so WP:KETTLE-y. jps (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "jerk" is a personal attack. Not that I mind a little incivility. Just noticing it's inconsistent to block [1] someone for it when you engage in it yourself. In my experience, the touchier admins seem perfectly willing to "swing the bat" when you criticize them directly. FYI, I've seen Drmies bully one of our best and most knowledgable music editors, Greg Fasolino in a similar fashion [2].--Atlantictire (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for finally posting to the article talk page. However, I do not appreciate being [[WP:No personal attacks|personally attacked] as incompetent for disagreeing with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)JPS, you are capable to behaving well and you are capable of behaving terribly. For what it is worth, I recommend you always act well, but I strongly recommend that you put on your best behavior when dealing with Drmies. Whatever you have done to draw down the comment that opened this thread, rethink and back down. Not a battle you want to have. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hahahaha Jytdog. Drmies fucking sucks. When someone is corrupt, I believe in giving them as many opportunities to demonstrate this as possible.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog, but I can take care of myself. I also recommend that you don't backhandedly insult people by insinuating they are acting terribly (even if you hide this insinuation by claiming mere capability). jps (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
jps, I have, in the past, frequently agreed with you on matters of content, and I'm glad to see that I can still agree with you on occasion. I don't know what Jytdog has to do with me, or what I've done to Fasolino--until just now, I didn't even know that Atlanticire was in the habit of creating sock accounts to harass other users (in case you didn't know, I blocked Atlanticire before all that, for referring to other editors as antisemites and bigots). I'm sure they won't bring that bullying charge to ANI--such accusations are like fringe science, they can't stand daylight. My beef with you, and it was not a big steak, was over those Ra reverts which I considered disruptive during that process. And while I think that your insinuations of personal whim were below the belt, at least you have the decency not to resort to vulgarity. Best, Drmies (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
blah blah blah blah blah. it's all on my talk page, if anyone actually cares. see: Jews and Communism--Atlantictire (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I thought i was very open about my perception that you act terribly sometimes! :) i wasn't trying to be subtle. Each of us are ultimately responsible for him- or herself - that is absolutely true and includes me and you. I also think that each of us is (tragically) trapped in his or her own mind and perceptual world, and I for sure appreciate it when people warn me I am driving over a cliff. You can - as can each of us - do as you will with whatever comes over the transom. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were trying to be direct, perhaps you're getting too ingrained in the Wikipedia dance-around. These WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies make people very circumspect and passive aggressive, perhaps when they don't even intend to be. I see it in my postings a lot. There was a time when you could spar with other users and no one would get upset. I guess that time was nearly a decade ago. Anyway, you don't need to pay me compliments to get me to pay attention. Just say, "Ass, you're doing something stupid." Why you think it is stupid to disagree with this particular administrator is not clear to me, but anyway.... jps (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 :) Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks or accusations against me. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPADE, etc. jps (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there[edit]

I went through exactly what you're going through with the now (thankfully) deleted Jews and Communism. Hang in there. I made the mistake of noticing that the article probably had been written by an "anti-semitic crank" and was blocked for making "personal attacks." Turns out, substantial portions had been plagiarized from an anti-Semitic website.

I have no idea what "men's rights" is (sounds like a 90s era SNL skit), but the arguments being put forward in favor of it are shockingly devoid of substance.

Wikipedia's current tolerance for endless passive aggressive word games long after sources and arguments have been discredited makes me crazy. It's everywhere right now: from topics having to do with Jews to the War of Currents. It's a massive bummer.

I'm gonna take a closer look at the history of this topic.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a startling tolerance for this kind of stuff. In the future, if you have problems with crank-ish advocacy and poor quality scholarship, try posting at WP:FTN. There are excellent people watching there. jps (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this isn't for everyone, but the admins were passive and doing absolutely nothing about some horrendously offensive content so I started operating Kobayashi Maru on WP:CIVIL. Because here's the thing: when it's Kobayashi Maru it isn't cheating. Put that on your block log, jackass.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi has a lot of friends here, so a good proportion of the people at ANI were users that he's edited with before. It's unlikely that you'll get anything without a very strong case containing lots of difs, which is fair I suppose, innocent until decisively proven guilty. I'd personally start with categories within 'Violence against men' and the 'Rape' and 'Domestic violence' articles that he removed 'Violence against women' from and carry on from there. The stuff at YesAllWomen was probably the most out of line that he's gone but he regularly reaches 2RR or 3RR to edit war the category in. There's also the sexism against female novels scandal and the attempt to define Sarah Brown as Gordon Brown's wife [3], ([4] and [5], both of which he had a part in. There is a case here but it has to be meticulously planned and structured with an editor with that many connections -- (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We'll see what happens. The ideal would be that he steps away from the area (which sometimes does happen). There was "notice" given in the ANI thread and it is clear that some of whom he thought would be allies are noticing something is not right. As these things go, escalation usually happens one dramaboard notice at a time, and the wise ones are the ones that can dial it down. Not sure he's capable, but I'm hopeful. Let's just get back to cleaning up the messes. There are some category and template deletion discussions to monitor. jps (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I mostly feel like giving up.The editors who make the best contributions to Wikipedia are the ones who have other stuff going on IRL, and it has to be possible for them to turn their backs for a few seconds and not return to find the site colonized by Reddit and 4chan trolls and conspiracy cranks. Unfortunately, it's looking like open web communities will always belong to the latter because they literally have nothing else going on to prevent that from happening. If any of you are women, I am so sorry about all of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The long game is your friend. Stepping away for a bit is always nice. What tends to happen here is that hot topics cool down after a few years allowing saner heads to prevail when the discussions happen again as they inevitably will. Slowly, but surely, little changes get made which lead to the necessary major revamping. If you're getting really frustrated, having a vent over at Wikipediocracy can be an okay outlet [6]. jps (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The way that I see it, however biased or extremist the user base is here, they are forced to rely on sources that do not confine to their limited worldview, so eventually the good content gets through, it just takes a lot of energy to argue with these people. It's one of the reasons that I withdrew from my main account (that and off-Wiki harassment), it's just too exhausting -- (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, RationalWiki is a decent alternative if you're thinking of taking a break, it doesn't put up with the racism/sexism, and you're much more likely to get banned for pushing those POVs -- (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the off-wiki harassment. I know what that's like. Fortunately, that too dies down after a while and, if you're careful about managing your presence, you can sometimes even sometimes come back from the dead, so to speak. This is the major reason my username is so convoluted. jps (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It's okay, I've had similar comments from people who just generally don't like me IRL so it isn't a big deal. I get what you mean though, you run into some really racist people if you try to edit articles related to Judaism or Islam -- (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to know more about this off-wiki harassment.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Judicious googling of my full name (found on my userpage) will probably find you some juicy examples. Not for this topic area (yet), but others. jps (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Were people posting about you on message boards? Did you get threatening emails or phone calls? Let's talk about this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Just angry Facebook messages, I blocked the account but it's enough to think "Wikipedia isn't worth this shit" haha. I'd just try to protect your identity and make sure that you stand behind everything that you say - you can't go wrong then -- (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was referred to this discussion on another talk page. Don’t mean to butt in. I want to thank jps for nominating cat for deletion. I agree that until a plan is established for category that relies on reliable sources, instead of men’s rights propaganda, wikipedia is better off without it. Really sorry to hear people have experienced off wiki harassment. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say this: to anyone who might think it's a good idea to harass someone off wiki for objecting to "men's rights" articles, wikipedia editors don't dox... but reporters sure do. The more I look into this, the more apparent it is that so-called men's rights activists are doing a fantastic job garnering sympathy for feminists and renewing interest in women's rights topics. Most male journalists seem to want to condemn this "movement" in the least ambiguous terms possible. If you want to make this an even more tantalizing story than it already may be for the journalists covering tech and women's issues (and sometimes both)... start harassing people off site.
Again, do not mistake me. This isn't me saying I'm going to publicly expose anyone. This is me saying harassing someone about this off site would be an excellent way to increase the likelihood of it becoming an embarrassing media event.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Atlantictire, I have to say that I respect the energy that you put into both this and the Jews and Communism thing. Mine was by a racist editor rather than an MRA but you're completely right. In the end this will work out okay, there's only so long they can edit based on sources that don't really exist. Even if this is hard work, the research done into articles and categories will remain long after the editors leave -- (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody revert this[edit]

I'm tired of fighting in the slop: [7].

jps (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance.

jps (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Done.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ooops, this is first discussion I've closed and apparently didn't do it quite right. Somehow closed all discussions below it too. Can someone fix that or tell me how to fix it and I'll do it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


I don't think its productive to discuss there further. I've asked you to lay out your claims and support them with sources. What are your claims, and where are the sources that support your claims. I'm willing to change my mind. Are you? Why are you pestering me about pdfs? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pestering you about PDFs because I have become concerned that you didn't actually read the sources you are attempting to use to justify your position. jps (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, i've read dozens of sources over the past few days, and had already been reading about these things when I created the categories. there's a good public library near my work that I use often, so I sometimes am able to access material there. In any case, I have amply supported my claims, e.g. that gender-specific massacres/sex-specific massacres are carried out and specifically studied as such in various literature beyond Jones himself, and the fact that these massacres are sex-selective is WP:DEFINING of them in most cases (Srebrenica being a famous case, but Kalavryta being another one). Why don't you lay out your claims, and what sources you have to support those claims. I've probably asked you 20 times, I don't mind I have patience, eventually you'll actually do some research yourself and maybe it will eventually change your mind, which would be awesome :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you indicate which sources you have read in their entirety and which ones you have not? jps (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is getting tedious... I was hoping you might have actually a point, but apparently your point is to pester me.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's okay if you don't want to do all of them immediately. Why don't you start with one at a time? Name one source you have read in its entirety and summarize what you think it is saying and how it fits in to the larger context of the overarching topic (be it gender studies, violence studies, or what have you). I'll then return the favor on the same source. Then maybe you could also mention another source that you haven't read in its entirety and perhaps don't have good access to and we can work out a WP:RX arrangement. That's the proper way to start a discussion about sourcing if you're really serious about doing this. jps (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not really down with that approach. I've made my claims and provided the sources that back up those claims. This is not an article, this is a f**** category. No category in the history of categories has ever had to defend itself from so much tendentious ****. If you have clear sources which dispute the very clear claims I have made, provide them. Otherwise, this conversation is over.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Now I am beginning to think that you may not have read any of the sources you cited. See, my argument was not that you didn't have sources. My argument has always been that you were either misinterpreting or misusing them. If we're going to decide if I'm right or you're right, we're going to have to dig first into how you are interpreting the sources. Reluctance to do this kind of actual scholarship is prima facie evidence, as far as I'm concerned, that you're not here to do actual research but instead are making some kind of WP:POINT. jps (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
hard for us to decide if you're right if you haven't read the sources (that is obvious) - and more importantly, we still don't know what your claims are, nor what sources support them. I have read the sources jp, not all, but some, and it was pretty clear they supported my claims, which are actually quite simple.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Then give me an example of a source you have read in full. I will summarize it, and you can see if you agree. jps (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

MRM sanctions[edit]

Multiple personalities serving routine friendly notices on one another

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- jps (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder much? My socks are quite ready to serve notices on me, but I haven't done it myself to myself so far. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
These sanction notifications are some of the most absurd things that happen on Wikipedia. I didn't know that MRM-related topics were under sanction until I stumbled upon the sanction page. Then I was aware, so I notified myself to save me the hassle of having an admin talk down to me. jps (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL, they may do that anyway. bishzilla ROARR!! 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

I wish[edit]

You would work collaboratively, instead of destructively. Summarily removing good faith and useful information about categorization that has been in the project for a year without any dispute whatsoever is frankly petty and rather vicious, esp since you aren't a member of the project nor have you participated in any deghettoization or categories work as far as I can tell. Can you please assume good faith and stop trying to delete useful things I'm doing here, or if you disagree with a particular instruction re: categories, explain why exactly so I can fix it or we can come to a compromise? Your aggressive behavior is not conducive to collaboration and I really wish you'd stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I offered you an opportunity to work with me above which you seem to have rebuffed and ignored. I've also been trying to clean up your disruption where I see it. Sorry that this is so upsetting to you. jps (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I haven't ignored it, just not in the mood to deal with that today. Stop hounding me and stop following my edits, it's disruptive. You don't even know what you reverted, nor why, and haven't engaged on talk to explain yourself. This aggression must stop. It's a fucking task force collaboration page for crying out loud, and you are doing your best to gut it. Why?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be getting increasingly agitated, and I believe I have explained myself already on the talkpage from two days ago. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that has changed is that the consensus is more clearly aligned with my position than yours. I may be wrong, of course, but the way we settle this is not normally through writing angrily on each other's talk pages. There are dispute resolution processes of which you can avail yourself if you think this dispute we have is intolerable. jps (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
you should wait for consensus to be clear rather than aggressively pursuing such reverts of my work. I know what you're doing, don't worry, it's pretty transparent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. Tell you what, I'll make my judgment calls, and you can make yours. jps (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Casualty List[edit]

Hi jps

Can you list the feminist editors who have blanked their userpages as a result of these disputes?

I know there's Drowning in Limbo and Hipocrite.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not much of an archivist of these things. Best to ask at Wikipediocracy. jps (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's treatment of Morwen was appalling. I have no doubt she's doing something constructive and cool now, but still. The ingratitude .--Atlantictire (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Massacre of the Innocents that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • This appears to be indiscriminate templating of users, Second Quantization (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To you perhaps, but not to at least two other editors. wp:agf, if you please. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not wrong[edit]

That is, about some editors here being MRAs. I'm not going to out anybody but there are regular r/mensrights posters editing here using the same or previously used usernames. It's not against any rules, of course, but their presence in sociology related articles is comparable to pseudoscience pushers editing in science related articles, and not a good thing for the project. Sometimes it's good to trust your instincts -- (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I am very much aware that I'm not wrong. I also know who these people are, but off-wiki identifying, no matter how simple, is frowned upon as evidence per WP:OUTING. If there is an arbcomm case, the evidence could be submitted privately. But until then we'll have to endure the campaign. I'll also note that some of the editors who are claiming innocent ignorance can be shown to be not so *erm* innocently ignorant. One thing that has disheartened me is how the category system on Wikipedia has been abused by this group. The gendered tit-for-tat ("There's violence against women so there must be violence against men") is a transparent campaign when you simply check out MRA pages and see what subjects they bring up and what subjects they don't. MRAs are, like pseudoscientists, rather blind when it comes to their pet theories and tend to focus on very particular (and often peculiar) ideas while outright ignoring others. Here's a fun little jaunt through that rabbit hole. Help is always appreciated, but it requires coordination. Talkpage stalker cabal, you've received your marching orders. ;) jps (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I personally hate the community aspects of this website anyway, I'm trying to avoid from them when I can and have been using a few IP addresses, it's just hard to edit in these areas when you run into them so much. I tend to curate discussions of Wikipedia on r/mensrights as it generally leads to vandalism and I've seen two editors here out themselves within these debates. In particular, Wikipediocracy is a good place to collect evidence off-site. I agree, Violence against women was a much stronger category before these campaigns, the removal of Rape related articles by Obi particularly disheartened me. Their particular outlook has disturbing roots too. One article by a white nationalist, 'Sexual Utopia in Power' by F. Roger Devlin, was a big influence on their movement, as are other white nationalists such as Chateau Heartiste's Roissy and The Spearhead's RamZPaul. Even their flagship website A Voice for Men has written in support of these people. The SPLC were right to track them. It is not uncommon for MRAs to bring up one academic article or small study that supports their views in the face of hundreds that do not, particularly when it relates to domestic violence or rape. There are plenty of groups that do support men's rights, but they are not associated or even linked to by most MRA websites. It is a completely different thing to promoting men's rights and this is most evident in its vehement opposition to Feminism. It is not a good thing to support these people and will only lead to bad press for the website. But whatever, the admins have again and again shown where they stand -- (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, good evidence that most of the arbs who might not know any more about this than I do (which is damn little) could understand anyway could be e-mailed to their mailing list. It is maybe possible they mightbe able to do something, and if they can't at least they might know what can legitimately be doneand they'll have that information should it ever go to ArbCom. You could ping maybe NYB, who would probably know best. PS: I look for mythological massacres over the weekend. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with the few editors who use similar handles on r/mensrights using both, it's just worth noting that they exist and are present here -- (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents[edit]

I think you are projecting here. You seem battle hardned and carrying a fight where it is not needed. I have admired your stance for years, but in fairness this is benign. Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not trying not to pick a fight, but I know the people involved, and they are thoughtful and considered. You are the dismissive agressor here; maybe if you toned it down we might all be that more rational. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point the new category is created and the fight is basically over. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thats not really the point, haha. Still. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually see where you are coming from, but I hope you understand that what is going on here is a fight on multiple fronts. We basically have two different "anti-mainstream" research views going on here and the question is which one is the less harmful approach. The new category approach came out of one particular conversation that was a lot more fruitful than in another venue. This is something I will not soon forget. jps (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello from a month ago (from a basically retired friend). I do get the two fronts problem. But choose your battles, was my long ago point. and no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is solved, but "low blow", User:Ceoil? What do you think this is? [8] Calling in the Christian Cavalry is what that appears to be. It heightened the conflict in a way that was totally unnecessary and pitting a different problem against this other one. I am not pleased to have to call out problems as I see them, but the user in question attacked in a cynical fashion. I have been trying to deal with it for weeks now. Fortunately, a new proposal was given by the same user that may sidestep some of the other issues, but understand that when one's motives are impugned in such a fashion, it is not straightforward to simply stand by and let them dominate conversations in ways that appear disingenuous. jps (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrible article[edit]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs, if you are not busy can you put this up for an afd. No reliable sources for its fringe claims and the article has been a mess for years. Goblin Face (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience clarification request archived[edit]

The original discussion can be found here The archive can be found here For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Please note that WP:CREDENTIAL applies to biographies and to biographical material in other articles. It is not a mandate to remove every instance of "Dr." in Wikipedia. Chris the speller yack 00:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The only time "Dr." should be used is when it is vital to the point being made, is a direct quote, or is associated with a nominal usage (e.g. "Dr. Drew"). Otherwise, there is no reason to use it. jps (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi jps. Like yourself, I am trying to make sure that we create articles that don't misinform our readers and that accurately reflect our best available sources. Regarding the categorization the EmDrive as pseudoscience, the removal of which you objected to, I am under the impression that you are evading my requests for specific sources that describe the EmDrive or its principles as pseudoscience. Given your strong views on the matter, I would think it would be easy to simply quote a couple of passages from Wired, The New Scientist, The Engineer or some other decent quality source to support your claim. If you are not able to, would you please be so kind as to remove the category until at least one source can be found?

FWIW, this may very well be pseudoscience. My personal view is that it will turn out to be the cold fusion of our time and will fade into obscurity. But on the miniscule chance that I'm wrong, I would hate to think that the world's greatest source of online knowledge is willing to ignore its own policies in order to be the vanguard of an effort to debunk something before real scientists actually have a chance to review and comment on it.- MrX 17:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

>>... will turn out to be the cold fusion of our time. ...>>

Perhaps it is more like the Dean drive of our time. Cardamon (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Parapsychology Issues[edit]

Hi. You raised a few more points on the Dean Radin talk page, and I thought I'd respond. Here goes:

"I'll respond in brief. The argument you level in point 1) was anticipated: the only "evidence" is from parapsychologists. If the effect exists, it should show up in other contexts. This has never been observed in spite of the carefulness of data collection in other contexts."

Sure, the only people studying this stuff are parapsychologists and skeptics, but mostly parapsychologists; however, once again, I never said parapsychology was a major source of scientific interest. All I've been saying is that it's not a pseudoscience, and that even if it's conducted by parapsychologists (and skeptics), the data should be looked at. If it's conducted by credible academics and can get through non-fringe peer-reviewed journal, it's worth looking at.

"2) I think you may want to read the notes of the AAAS meetings that occurred... especially the ones around the time the PA was accepted and when Wheeler objected."

Please send them to me. All I know is that Wheeler failed to get it kicked out. However, I must stress once more that if it really WAS a pseudoscience, they probably would have gotten rid of such a problematic bit of baggage already.

"3) The physics journals you seem to think Radin should be proud of (Foundations of Physics, or Physics Essays) are both fringe journals of the worst sort. Let him publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS."

[Facepalm] Er... no. Just no. They're physics journals. They may have a low impact-factor, but they are credible and have good peer-review. If you think that's what "fringe" is, I advise you to look at the Journal of Scientific Exploration or the Journal of Cosmology. Those are truly "both fringe journals of the worst sort." As for the others, I once again stress that parapsychology and its data collection aren't part of mainstream scientific interests, but that doesn't make it a pseudoscience nor worthless data.

"4) There is a persistent problem that parapsychology is a branch of psychology -- a field, which Wiseman points out, has a worse reputation for rigor than does parapsychology."

Huh??? OK, if Wiseman is saying that it's that unreliable, as you seem to be implying, he's a bit of an idiot. After all, that's his field he's talking about! Are you thinking of Freudian psychoanalysis or Maslow's ideas? If you are, these are just not representative of the field as a whole. Experimental psychology, which fully adopts the scientific method, is very important to cognitive science, as without it we wouldn't be able to understand key aspects of human behavior (incl. memory, emotions, etc.) or build a model of cognition and its neural substrates in the first place. It's complex and needs to take into account all sorts of variables, but the human mind is a complex thing in the first place.

I don't want to sound passive-aggressive or patronizing, but you really need to read up on this stuff more if you're going to edit articles on the topic (I speak from experience! lol), and preferably ignore Wiseman as much as you can. [Though this is more of an aside, he has his dishonest moments as well: and]

Take care... PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to stress that I'm really not trying to patronize. People have done that to me, and I just want to assert myself and not beat around the bush when I write. I'm passionate about what I think and will defend it as best I can, but still, I am always willing to listen to what other people have to say. You seem like a nice fellow. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In brief:
1) The problem is we never see the effect outside of parapsychology even though it should be there according to the parapsychologists.
2) You can find the notes by snooping around on the internet using the relevant search terms. They are interesting.
3) I get the feeling you aren't up on what the best journals in physics are. They are not Foundations of Physics or Physics Essays which are chock-a-block full of pseudoscience.
4) Wiseman is talking about the fact that psychologists often do worse protocols and statistics than even parapsychologists. There have been a number of high-profile scandals that indicate that psychology is bereft of unifying integrity. The best psychologists will probably be shunted off into neuroscience or cognitive science or medicine or social sciences at some point. After all, the psyche doesn't actually exist.
I would avoid making too many references to Sheldrake who enjoys, with Radin, a reputation for being a pre-eminent pseudoscientist especially when it comes to pseudophysical conjectures.
jps (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Amplifying only on point #4, I think PhiChiPsiOmega has an incorrect perception of the scientific quality of the psychology literature, which is notorious for statistical illiteracy even at the highest academic levels. This criticism has nothing to do with Freudian analysis or psychoanalytic theory; it is precisely the experimental facets of psychology where a stunning ignorance of even the most basic statistical concepts is on display, and where most published findings can be counted upon to be wrong.

Faulty understanding of null-hypothesis significance testing and the tyranny of the p-value are pervasive in the psychology literature (see PMID 17484431). It took a major, and so far incomplete, struggle in the early 2000s to convince psychologists to publish confidence intervals or error bars (see PMID 15354697 & PMID 14738519). Confidence intervals are a rudimentary statistical tool which is usually introduced in the first week or so of a freshman-level undergraduate statistics course, and they're hardly a fix for the problem of faulty statistical thinking, but even this exceedingly modest improvement in the psychological literature was met with incredible resistance.

And speaking of confidence intervals, there's PMID 24420726, which is probably my favorite paper so far in 2014. In it, the authors posed 6 basic questions testing understanding of confidence intervals to cohorts of undergraduates, of psychology graduate students, and of psychology research faculty. Suffice to say that of 118 academic experimental psychologists, only 3 demonstrated an accurate understanding of confidence intervals. (The authors noted dryly that the psychology researchers showed no greater insight into this basic concept than did undergrads with no prior statistical coursework). These are the people who are writing papers, peer-reviewing papers, and editing journals in the field, and they don't understand what a confidence interval is. Again, we're talking about basic confidence intervals, not some esoteric Bayesian wizardry. So to say that the parapsychology literature is methodologically superior to the psychology literature is probably true, but extremely faint praise.

I will say that Bem's paper on psi was a welcome wake-up call for the field. The publicity accrued by Bem's paper shone a harsh spotlight on the statistical illiteracy rampant in even the most "reputable" psychology literature ([9], [10]). And of course, the first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that one exists. MastCell Talk 01:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To jps:
1) Again, that's because not many people outside of parapsychology are interested in it, for the reasons I pointed out earlier (haven't looked at the evidence to make an assessment in the first place, etc.).
2) Well, give me some links.
3) I didn't say they were the "best journals in physics" (and by that I think you mean "the most-cited"). I just said they weren't fringe and are credible. I think I'm being very clear on that front. Also, please provide evidence for the assertion that they are "chock full of pseudoscience". I've never heard this from anyone else...
4) I know what he's saying. I don't need more of an explanation of what he said than what you gave earlier. "The best psychologists will probably be shunted off into neuroscience or cognitive science or medicine or social sciences at some point." Probably? As in, you're inferring that psychology is "probably" a worthless endeavor? I'd think the majority of psychologists and academics around the world would disagree with Wiseman's assessment! Its findings link to all sorts of fields, and the consensus is that it has been, despite its problems, that it is credible academically.
"After all, the psyche doesn't really exist." Erm... the psyche is the unconscious and conscious human mind. Are you saying that doesn't exist?
No. He "enjoys, with Radin," the ability to explore these topics (as well as more fringe ones) in a scientific manner. I think they have weird interests, but they are credible academics. Also, all you have to do is read what Sheldrake wrote. After all, you should read the people Wiseman is making a response to in order to see if he's representing them fairly. Granted, some of their ideas are speculative, but they are informed nevertheless.
To MastCell:
Erm ... OK. I think time will tell as to whether or not Wagenmakers et al.'s conclusions are warranted. I don't feel we should make a hasty judgment just yet on what is currently considered to be a good field. Moreover, as a student, I don't feel I have the resources to make an assessment of the claims they're making. They might be relevant, they might not, but I will have to chew on that for a while.
PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
MastCell so looking at PMID 24420726 and the other sources you linked, so I've been walking around this whole time thinking that a confidence interval means "There's a 95% chance that the true value lies between 0.3 and 0.5" (or whatever) but one of those papers said No, that's something to do with Bayesian statistics, and that the real meaning is along the lines of "If you repeat the same sampling and you calculate the margin of error, there's a 95% chance that the margin will contain the true value of the parameter." OK that seems like a very subtle difference. I also watched a few YouTube videos explaining it and generally those videos say "There's a 95% chance the true value lies in the interval" which apparently is not correct, or I'm not understanding them right. Do you have the full text of PMID 24420726 available to share? Found here. I want to see those six true/false questions posed. Thanks... Zad68 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zad68: I'm not a statistician, and it's hard to discuss complex concepts in a Wikipedia talkpage format, but I'll try to explain. The correct definition of a 95% confidence interval is this: if you repeatedly sample a population, then 95% of the confidence intervals you generate will contain the true population mean. That sounds equivalent to saying that there's a 95% chance that the true mean lies within the CI, but it's not. The reason is that the true population mean is a fixed value. The probability that it's within a given CI is 100% or 0%.

Confidence intervals, in contrast, are not fixed values. They are generated from random samples. If you take 10 random samples from a population, you will generate 10 different 95% CIs. So it's correct to speak of these random CIs containing the fixed population mean, but incorrect to speak of the CI as a fixed value and the population mean as subject to a probability distribution (e.g. "a 95% chance that it lies between 0.3 and 0.5"). Like other frequentist methods (e.g. p-value testing), CIs don't tell you about the "truth" (the value of the population mean); instead, they describe the results your procedure would yield if you repeated it many times with different random population samples. If you want to speak directly about the true value of the population mean, then you need to incorporate a prior probability distribution—that's where Bayesian methods come in.

At this point, one might object: if CIs will contain the true population mean 95% of the time, then doesn't it follow that there's a 95% chance that the population mean will lie in a given CI? No. Because the population mean is not a random variable; it's an unknown constant. It doesn't have a probability distribution associated with it.

I'm not sure I've explained this clearly; it is a subtle point, and like many statistical fine points, it's deeply counterintuitive. There's a pretty decent explanation here. On some level, this is a highly technical distinction, but it gets to the fundamental problem in psychology (and, to be fair, in many other social and biomedical sciences)—people use frequentist methods and give their results a Bayesian interpretation. MastCell Talk 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

MastCell thanks for those! Although I have to say I'm still thinking this is a "disctinction without a difference." In what you linked to the lesson being driven home is "The parameter is static, it's the confidence interval that's variable" but in saying "There's a 95% chance that the interval 0.3 to 0.5 contains the true value" I don't think I (or anyone who phrases it that way) is excluding which is the moving target. It just seem to me that the insistence on phrasing it as "There's a 95% chance that my algorithm that produces confidence intervals that attempt to contain the true value actaully did so when it produced the interval [0.3, 0.5]" is unnecessary pedantry. Can you point to an actual erroneous consequence of phrasing it in the first way that phrasing it in the second way avoids? I'm going to try rephrasing the 6 questions where were all false in the correct way to see if I can do that.... and I might pick up the next response on this (if you're still interested in discussing!) on your User Talk rather than here to avoid cluttering up the other conversation happening. Zad68 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────1) I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm saying. One should be able to see effects even if one isn't looking for them. 2) Please just do the search yourself. If you run into difficulties, let me know why. 3) Here is physics essays and Here is foundations of physics. None of those papers are any good. I understand that they may appear superficially to look like decent work, but they accept essentially speculation and points that have been outright rejected. 4) The psyche is something that is distinguished from the mind in that it includes unobservable aspects of it. It is associated with this proposal that "spirit" exists. If you just wanted to study the mind, you study the brain. Credibility in academia is done through the judgment of peers. Peers do not judge Radin and Sheldrake kindly. jps (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1) You're right. I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this at all, because it seems very trivial to me. We need to investigate it first before we can actually weed out where they show up in our experiments (if at all). You're putting the cart before the horse, IMO.
2) All you need to do is send me one or two links... lol
3) Sending me links to the journals and saying "Look at all that pseudoscience" is not very helpful. "they accept essentially speculation" What? They devote pages to theoretical physics. How is that pseudoscientific speculation? They're examining potential models of the universe and interpretations of quantum mechanics, both of which are highly-evolving fields. "points that have been outright rejected." Please elaborate. If you're going to make claims like this, you need to provide evidence, because few to any researchers, as far as I can see, has ever pushed them into the areas of fringe science.
4) AFAIK, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Not all people who use "psyche" think "soul" or "intangible spirit". The collective unconscious, for example, can also be interpreted in terms of genetic inheritance without any numinous elements. Also, while many people view consciousness as connected to the brain either through correlation or causation, we still have yet to understand what it actually is. There are many different types of physicalism, and you can't know what to look for about the mind in relation to the brain until you take other disciplines (i.e. psychology) into account.
Most people aren't interested in their work, and the majority of criticisms come from die-hard skeptics with a bias against parapsychological investigation. Moreover, parapsychologists, with few exceptions, like Radin and Sheldrake's work, and Sheldrake has even cited people who do agree with him. I will say, however, that people are more hostile to Sheldrake than to Radin, and do find Sheldrake less credible (unfairly, IMO). But again, this was just an aside, and I really don't feel like digressing from the main topics and defending Rupert Sheldrake right now. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, Physics Essays is indexed: PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Indexing doesn't mean much more than a minimum requirement for reasonableness. Saying something is indexed is a bit like saying a business is in the phonebook. I think perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying in 1) because you aren't involved in scientific work. When I'm in the lab, I'm looking for anomalies. I want to find them. It's precisely because of this I find the claims of parapsychology unreasonable. Where are the corroborating pieces of evidence that it is there? Why can't PK affect my physics experiments? I'm sorry you can't identify the pseudoscience, but if you don't want to take my word for it, ask at WT:PHYSICS. I will not be alone in my evaluations of this. Finally, I think you should interrogate what consciousness in terms of neuroscience means. There are deep questions that remain unanswered, but they are not of the "psychic" sort. Have you read Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis? That's a good place to start. jps (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Indexing also means it has credibility and it isn't just pseudoscience. Fringe journals like the JSE aren't even indexed. Granted, Physics Essays and Foundations of Physics may say some things you disagree with on a technical level, but that doesn't make them "obviously wrong."
I know you're looking for anomalies, and I know you're asking why no psi-like anomalies show up. However, I still stick by my assessment when I say you're looking at this the wrong way. The best place to start is at the parapsychology labs, where we can figure out how these effects pan out in the things we observe. I mean, are you trying to influence the outcome as you're performing the experiment? Is anyone else actively focused on the outcome of the experiment you're doing? It could be that these phenomena are rare in the first place, that with the environment you're working in, it's even less probable that a person or group will try to influence the outcome in any way, or that you or the people you're working with aren't in the proper state of mind to influence the outcome actively OR passively. There are so many variables you need to take into account -- this is the human mind, it's going to be complex! No offense, but again, I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
First, I never said the questions that needed to be answered were of the psychic sort. I just said that to say mind=brain right now is far-fetched. Second, I'm familiar with Crick, and I'm also familiar with Koch. I'm very interested in the Koch-Tononi Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. It's panpsychistic, offers a compelling solution to the main philosophical problem of consciousness, and actually fits in a great deal with some theories of psi. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. "Indexing also means it has credibility and it isn't just pseudoscience." You clearly don't know what indexing is:
  2. How do you know I'm looking at this the wrong way? Why does psi shy away from places that aren't parapsychology labs? As I've stated before, I am trying to influence the outcome and see no difference. If you claim an effect exists but you can't measure it unless a true believer is doing the experiment, what you have is N-rays or polywater.
  3. Why is the human mind going to be complex? You make that assertion but provide no rationale.
  4. If you are familiar with Crick, then what's wrong with his analysis?
  5. Point to an article that claims Totoni has agreed that his proposal accommodates any parapsychology.

jps (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

jps, None of what that article said contradicted me -- it was just clarifying what types of services were legitimate indexing services. Moreover, it explicitly cites the following quote: "Being represented in the relevant online A&I services is without question an essential factor for the success of a … journal. Today all searching is done online, so it is imperative that a journal is represented in the relevant online search systems. Moreover, authors rely on finding articles through A&I services and therefore boost their usage when reading them. When they come across high-quality articles of a certain journal in their search, they are also very likely to consider the journal a good outlet to publish in themselves." All I was saying is that Foundations of Physics and Physics Essays satisfy this criterion of legitimacy, and that therefore your assertion that they're pseudoscientific is just an assertion.
Please don't straw-man me like this. I never said "a believer has to do the experiment to demonstrate the effect," so don't need to whip out the polywater comparisons. All I actually said was that just trying to do it willy-nilly, without good knowledge of how to do it, is not going to give you results. The reason parapsychology exists is because not only can we figure out if there's an effect, but also can we find under which states of mind an effect can exist. Note that this second part applies to everyone who tries doing it, not just believers. You might be doing it wrong. You might say you're trying to do it, but unconsciously, you might not want it to be true. There's some data (collected by the skeptic/believer pair Richard Wiseman and Marilyn Schlitz) suggesting that the experimenter effect exists. This has a basis in more mundane tasks. It's like my trying to play basketball while having an conscious or unconscious feeling of inferiority, or forcing myself to do something I inherently feel uncomfortable with and failing as a result. Maybe that's a solution. I don't know. Maybe you're not psychic, just like some people are intelligent, but can't play chess. All I do know is that saying "I do it but I don't see any effects" doesn't tell me anything. You could be ignoring other aspects of your behavior (and your mind as a whole) that could prevent such a thing, and thus can't use this as evidence against psi. Does that make sense? I think I'm being very clear here.
I make the "assertion" because the human mind, in any particular psychology experiment, has several confounding emotions, feelings, issues, etc. that could have an impact on said experiment. This, AFAIK, is a given in psychological fields. It's why parapsychologists try to provide some state of mind for their subjects that has no sensory leakage but is still calm, relaxed, and undistracted.
I didn't say he agreed. I just think panpsychism would allow for it. I probably should have put "IMO" there. Sorry if that wasn't apparent. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I do think the article contradicted your claim that an indexed journal cannot contain pseudoscience. I do not see Physics Essays or Foundations of Physics cited in the literature. They simply are not used because they allow speculative pseudoscience to be published. I don't understand how you can claim that a physics lab is doing controls "willy nilly". What is "wrong" about a physics lab? Seriously. Explain the difference between a good set-up and a poor one in order to detect whether a psi affects the diffraction patterns of laser beams. The Wiseman/Schlitz data does not indicate that there is an experimenter effect (at least not rigorously). How are you going to measure whether someone unconsciously wants something to be true or not be true? At some point you are inventing excuses rather than looking at what null results actually mean. If you claim that emotions, feelings, issues are confounding variables, then you should be able to explain how to measure them to control for them. If you can't you aren't doing science. jps (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
1) I know what you think. However, I think the article didn't contradict my claim. The journals have low impact-factors, but they're indexed in reputable scientific sources. That was my point, and that's why it's on the Wiki entry in the first place.
2) I didn't say "physics labs are doing controls willy-nilly." You're strawmanning again. I said that you don't have the controls to do an experiment that also needs input from psychology, i.e. a field that studies human behavior. Why are you comparing apples and oranges like this?
3) Your asserting the idea that the Wiseman/Schlitz stuff doesn't establish an experimenter effect is ... well, just an assertion. I don't know what to do with it. The data is there, and there's no question of "rigor."
4) As for measuring the impact that human emotions have in psychological experiments, all you have to do is look at the experimental psych. literature to find examples of how to control for those things. To figure out how your attitudes might affect your decisions, we can measure that in so many ways. We could, for example, find common traits in people who can cause an effect and those who can't. We can then do more tests with people of similar dispositions to those who didn't get effects in order to test the hypothesis. And so on. This is a suggestion, sure, but I think it's a fair representation of how this should be approached. I'm just saying that the fact that you can't affect the outcome is inconclusive until we do more investigation. This is the sort of testing parapsychology is devoted to...
PS: Please send me the links to the AAAS meetings. It should be easy to do. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An index isn't a "reputable scientific source". It just isn't. I am arguing that psychic phenomena, if they exist, should be affecting physics experiments. Do you think that isn't true? If the experimenter effect exists, you can tell me how to measure its strength. How much does the (non)belief of an experimenter affect an outcome of an experiment? Be specific, please. Finally, I argue that these investigations have all been done. Parapsychology is not new. It's been around for more than 100 years. That's enough time, in my estimation, to show a subject moribund. jps (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus. I didn't say an index "is a reputable scientific source". I think I made it quite clear that some indices are more reliable than others, and that the journals in question are listed in those. Again: Stop. Strawmanning.
I know very well what you're arguing. It's just that you seem to be missing or ignoring the point of what I'm trying to tell you, which is that the assertions you're making ("If psi is real, this should happen") are groundless. There's no reason to suspect anything like what you're saying until we more fully understand the phenomenon in question. Parapsychology may have been around for more than 100 years, but there just aren't many people doing the research, and the amount of research that's put out is proportional to that small number of interested people (believers, skeptics, and neutral scientists). It isn't as large as you seem to think. Most of this research has been done to show whether an effect exists (and where), sure, but by this point, they can now explore the specifics of the effect. If parapsychologists can do this with the experimenter effect, they can do it with the types of things you're looking for. The controls are improving, the results aren't going away, and parapsychology is developing to the point where it probably can accommodate the research you're asking for. It's hardly moribund -- it's just experimental and in a constant state of development. The data supports that some people are psychic and not others. Why this is the case is what we're trying to figure out. Again, "cart" minus "horse" equals "your methods".
"How much does the (non)belief of an experimenter affect an outcome of the experiment?" You can look at the Wiseman-Schlitz paper if you want some preliminary trends. Moreover, see above.
Let me make this clear: If you respond to me again, please try to comprehend what I'm saying, because I'm starting to lose patience with you. And moreover, don't start edit-wars with me and get me kicked off a page. I'm just trying to improve things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think we've dragged this conversation out long enough. I don't feel like continuing this, and I don't want to grow more frustrated. This will be my last response. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The data (which, the pedant in me feels compelled to reinforce, is a plural noun) most certainly don't support the idea "that some people are psychic and not others". You can believe whatever you like; I certainly believe in some things that are as yet unproven. But if you think that the currently available data support the notion of psi, then I'd agree there's not much to talk about, except for the fact that in an ideal world, people should need to qualify for a license before they're allowed to use statistical tools. MastCell Talk 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate: listing in an index is not a good way to evaluate whether a journal is publishing good papers or not. It just says that the journal went through the necessary process to be indexed. That's all it is. I'm not sure whether you've read this, but our own section on Parapsychology#Physics shows the way here. In science, an effect is discovered and then replicated. This has not been what has happened in parapsychology. I have looked at Wiseman-Shlitz's paper and I don't see anything close to "preliminary trends". I see evidence of wishful thinking, and so does Wiseman. If you would like to emphasize what you see, be my guest.
jps (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, looking at an index is often pointless. For a legitimately scientific field, the better question to ask is: where do experts in that field publish? If you are looking in journals outside this, they are probably unreliable since they lack the scrutiny of experts in the field. For a fringe or pseuodscientific subject, the question is then where do experts in the closest field of knowledge publish. For example, in the Foundations of Physics journal (which has changed editors recently), there is another speculative article by Penrose on his cyclical cosmology. For it to be taken more seriously, it should be published in a journal that cosmologists frequently look at (as it is, the article is just a rehash of a presentation he gives; he literally includes images of his acetates). I wouldn't call that necessarily pseudoscience, but merely very speculative or refuted (considering he was rebutted for using incorrect techniques for his WMAP analysis and his claims against this seemed weak). I wouldn't call Foundations of Physics pseudoscience (the editor is Gerard 't Hooft as well), I would think of it less as a scientific journal and more as something on the borders of philosophy, speculation, future suggestions and science. Unreliable for wikipedia since it's highly speculative, and sometimes actually refuted material, but not pseudoscience, Second Quantization (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Please don't add comments like this to Wikipedia. I think you've been here long enough to know better.- MrX 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

People are allowed to express their opinions of sources. jps (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not allowed to discredit people by calling them names. Your words have real life consequences and since you asked, please modify your post to remove the WP:BLP violation ("looniest"). Thank you.- MrX 19:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So modified, but just so you understand, the Retired Dr. Mitchell is no delicate flower. He knows that the majority of sane people think him to be loony. jps (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI. You're very close to violating WP:3RR at Roswell UFO incident if you haven't already crossed that line. You should try to collaborate rather than simply trying to force your preferred version into the article by brute force.- MrX 20:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


Dude, you need to stop and think about what you are doing. Let me state it as plainly as I can: you are edit-warring to include a WP:BLP violation. You've been on Wikipedia for longer than I have so you should know that BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. Striking through the BLP violation where everyone can still see the violation is not a 'Get out of jail free' card that lets you skirt around the rules. You are an experienced editor so I cannot believe that I have to explain this to you. In any case, if you continue to do so, I'll file a report at WP:AE and you can explain to the AE admins why you think it's a good idea for you to edit-war to include BLP violations on Wikipedia. This is your last warning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't want the strikethrough included, just say so. It's now removed. Also, I'm not sure under what arbitration you would file at WP:AE. But whatever. jps (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow]]?[edit]

You might want to take a look at it with the socks struck, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Please proof read the article, it will be the bes tway to understand much ! Paolosalucci (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

Please note that you have removed material 3 times in the last 24 hours. You need to be careful to avoid WP:3RR. I suggest not editing it any and using the talk page instead. Dennis 18:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. jps (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That article is an utter cesspit. No one who values their sanity should go anywhere near it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)