Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Discussion notice regarding Sharon A. Hill's article

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding possible removal of content. The thread is Discussion_on_her_opinion_piece_on_Paranormal_State. Thank you.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Firestorm at WP:COIN about editor Susan Gerbic and GSoW

No notification here about this? See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 and something at RSN about Skeptical Inquirer. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to RSN regarding Skeptical Inquirer. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now an ArbCom case. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ceremonial stone landscape

This project may be interested in Ceremonial stone landscape, a controversial concept in Native American archeology. Thriley (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure it needs work, but how controversial is it? And I've suggested the creation of a new article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Shouldn't there be an article for the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)?. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The work of Timothy Ives states that claiming these as indigenous religious or cultural structures is a form of Pseudoarchaeology. It is worth looking at the ceremonial stone landscape editing history. There appears to be an unsourced rebuttal that was removed years ago. I am deeply interested in Native American history and am troubled about what I have read about the discovery and promotion of these structures. I’m not sure if there is a member of this project that covers this kind of thing, but it could make for an interesting article. Thriley (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd no idea. The concept of religious landscapes itself is I think uncontroversial. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. The area around Stonehenge is an example. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting you say that. It looks like the article at one point covered religious landscapes globally. Maybe this article should shift back to that? I do think these North American structures deserve a mention somewhere with some detail on their interpretive history and the differing opinions about them. Thriley (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've posted to Wikiproject archaeology about this article and the need for a religious landscape article. Oh how I wish I had the time, it would be fun. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Even a little time on Wikipedia moves mountains. Thanks for your assistance! Thriley (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't have time to write such an article and so far the only response has been to suggest I do. But hopefully someone will. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see this completed, the photos would be so interesting I bet. We all have to find projects that we feel a passion for, I've picked up two in the last couple weeks, spent hours and found nothing to add so I went back to my garden. Agree with Thirley - fussing away in bits is a help. Sgerbic (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing

Should be of interest. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh it is a joy! ;-) Sgerbic (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fallacy article problems

There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Fallacy_articles that may interest members of this WikiProject. RapturousRatling (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Green children of Woolpit

I have nominated Green children of Woolpit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This may be of interest.

WP:FTN#Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to reach consensus on medium/psychic BLPs

I have started a discussion over whether whether Wikipedia should describe psychics or mediums as "claimed", "self-purported", etc. Obviously, I do not think Wikipedia should be promoting fringe claims of individuals, but I am concerned that (a) the policy is being applied inconsistently here, and (b) co-ordinated editing, as related to the ongoing arb case regarding certain members of this WikiProject, may be influencing decisions here. However, I would greatly appreciate any other takes on the situation. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychic Con Artists

Of possible interest to members of this project; see this story in today's Guardian. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychic Mafia is a powerful book and a must-read for anyone interested in the topic of psychic mediums. also Flim-Flam! Sgerbic (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A note about discretionary sanctions and pseudoarchaeology

In the recent ArbCom discussions it was made clear by several committee members that pseudoarcheology is covered by the fringe and pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Protoscience

The article Protoscience has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is just a wordy dictionary definition, it contains no significant encyclopedic material. It has been this way for at least sixteen years, see the talk page discussion on Delete the article. Per our policy on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, it has no business here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Weiss

I recently created a draft for anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss. There is currently controversy regarding her views about the return of Native American remains and the way her own institution treated her. I would appreciate some help from this project as it is a sensitive subject. Thriley (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This article about the situation was published in Inside Higher Ed a few days ago:[1] Thriley (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness

I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Dowsing

There is an editorial disagreement on the dowsing pseudoscience article over whether fake bomb detectors are relevant. Some more eyes/views at Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How this WikiProject works

Caution: I was feeling frustrated when I wrote this so it might not be phrased as sweetly as I might normally. But I think the points are valid, so I left it as is. No offence intended.

I joined this WikiProject some time ago, but I still don't really understand how it is supposed to work. Who creates the list to do, for instance? Or does every member just add to it whatever they personally think is important? Or what is the purpose of the big list of articles on the main page - is that intended to be an exhaustive list of everything in scope of the WikiProject, and what are we supposed to do with those articles? The page of Resources is just as opaque - what does something like "Tagged articles changes database report" mean and what am I supposed to do with it, for example?

Frankly, some of these things look like an individual developed something for their own use, and just parked it here so they don't lose it. If they are meant for general use, then how can we find out what they are, when to use them, and what to do with them?--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but the fact is that very few wikiprojects function as might be hoped. There are at least three kinds: (1) Moribund, where effectively nothing happens and requests for assistance are not answered. (2) Monitoring, where at least some requests will attract attention. Participants won't necessarily reply on the project talk page to a request, but they might look at a reported issue and take whatever action they can. (3) Team effort, where almost every request gets a response, and where a to-do list is actively pursued. The third kind is very rare. For something like skepticism, participants generally find enough to do by simply following their watchlists and noticeboards. Nothing is exhaustive at Wikipedia and the list has just been updated by people who feel motivated to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. As a member of several WikiProjects (though not this one), I have not found this one particularly unusual; as explained above, they vary widely. Any editor can join any WikiProject and support it as they see fit. There is never anybody "in charge", though there are often several long-term members who all think much alike and thus form a core consensus. Usually, as here, the best place to find answers is to do what you just did and post your questions on its talk page. And often, the only answer is; "Help yourself and make whatever improvements you see fit; we are a small volunteer group with lives elsewhere and have little time to spare; all help gratefully received." Sorry I can't help with the specific project issues you raise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been on WikiProject: Skepticism for years and years and I believe only a handful of editors have been attempting to keep it running. WikiProject Paranormal I believe was just marked dormant. I've posted from time to time and I pay attention to the watchlist that comes though. Found many interesting pages that I had never heard of before from that watchlist. I really really don't like when someone creates a to-list for me, so I'm not likely to create one for someone else. Ranking is also just silly and a time waste, especially if no one is picking though the work. Looks like WikiProject Skepticism has been existing for years just keeping pages cleaned up and vandalism free, or AfDing things.

Seems like maybe what it needs is to get serious work done, content created, maybe in a focused way? A goal that is limited in scope and allows people to meet each other and collaborate. In the years past I have done this with GSoW. It was a blast and we were able to knock things out because when you are focused on a specific topic, then one area of research leads to another well. In the past GSoW would pick 6 months as it's set date for the topic for no reason but that it was a good amount of time. We did all things focused on the NDT Cosmos series (in all languages) and planned our project to end when the series was released in 2013. It branched off into a group of GSoW editors writing pages concerning astronomy. Just looking now and I see we are tagged at 74 pages, that have been viewed over 2 million times. Another project we focused on for six months was books from writers in the skeptical community or books about skepticism, paranormal. This was also a blast, we created a "template" of sorts of what a really good Wikipedia page would look like if it was about a book. This was more difficult than thought because books weren't reviewed in RS as much as we needed, so hard to pass notability standards. But in the end we wrote 54 pages that have been viewed 1.3 million times. (I like numbers - you have to have some way to measure things). Then the last one I think was all things vaccinated related. This was way back in the "before times", not remembering how many we wrote back then, I think it was 2015. But since Covid-19 we again refocused on efforts to get all Wikipedia pages concerning all the various areas of vaccines (people, organizations, things) knowing that once vaccines were created for Covid-19, the world would be scrambling to know more about them. I didn't anticipate that we would have such fabulous and effective (and free) vaccines so quickly. Nor did I expect the amount of misinformation. But we are now at 106 created, with 5.1 million views.

So with all this rambling - I think what WikiProject:Skepticism needs to kick-start it in the behind, is to get those who have signed on to get behind a theme, something limited in scope and maybe something more in the fun area. I'm thinking Lake Monsters, Cryptozoology, plant woo, Ghosts, or maybe something even more creative and fun ... childhood woo, something that really scared you. Everyone can pick their own topic like Harry Potter Boggarts.[2] my childhood scare has already been rewritten, Spontaneous human combustion. But I'm sure I could find other pages that link to SHC that would be related enough to qualify in this fun exercise.

We could create a sub-topic much as this one created by User:Nederlandse Leeuw years ago. Skeptical organisations in Europe[3].

What do you think? Is there any appetite for this here on WikiProject: Skepticism? Sub-Project Boggart? Sub-Project Ghostly Ghouls? Sub-Project Plant-Based Woo? Sgerbic (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a harder time thinking of pages that would fall into this category. So much has already been done on topics that scared me as a child. And of course as I'm exploring around Wikipedia, I keep falling into rabbit holes and it's taking me some time. :-) Sgerbic (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:, Steelpillow, Sgerbic - thanks for your responses! I don't really know what I expected from a WikiProject. It seems obvious that people have put quite a lot of effort into putting together aspects of this, which is part of why I find it so frustrating that I can't tell why they are there or how they should be used. Perhaps that is a good starting point: drafting some instructions so people can understand what they are looking at, why it is there, and what to do with it... subject to review, of course.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean Gronk Oz. To me the front page of the project is very intimidating because it contains too much detail. Much of that detail is also available on the right-hand navigation links. What if we draft the instructions as you suggest and use that to point readers to the various features on the other pages? Even that activity may help us narrow down how/if those features are valuable? Allecher (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Allecher: - thanks for that. Too much detail does not have to be a problem, if the reader understand what they are looking at, why it is there, what they are supposed to do with it. I am looking around some other sources to see how they do it, and also some of the limitations (for example, the New Articles page is entirely generated by the bot, and there is no facility to add our own text there). So yes, I think the basic instructions should be one of the first things the new person sees - even if it's collapsible so it doesn't get in the way for more advanced users.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great ideas! I think the newer user that might be wanting to join a project would be very intimidated to find all this instruction. Those that are more advanced, know how to find things without all the lists. As they say "Less is more". Sgerbic (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll work up some simplification to the main project page, replacing some of the long sections with the links that already exist on the righthand menu. That may also point out that some links on the right are not needed or could be improved. Allecher (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt of simplifying the page. I invite others to help make it more streamlined and remove unnecessary overhead. What do you think? Allecher (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Already my stress goes down just looking at the page Allecher. The wall of text and links are gone. Much better - but I think some flowers over in the corner and a new color scheme would improve it more. Maybe a couch with a bookshelf and a kitten? Sgerbic (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Allecher - do you think you could please archive more of the talk conversations? Sgerbic (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Also could you please put the link to the sub-projects on the list? Sgerbic (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

So this is it - I see we have a bunch of new people who have joined and expect more. I posted a couple days ago that I thought a themed subproject might be the way to get people checking in here often, and get us to know each other better and each other's talents. I tried and tried to find a group of pages that were skepticism related that needed work, but all I could find was science related pages. I want something we can dig our teeth into and spend a few months just digging into. I don't want to create a to-do list for someone else - that wouldn't motivate me. On Afrikaans Wikipedia every year they run an event to rewrite stubs, anything I think on any topic that was labeled a stub (they call them seeds which I think is a much better name because we want them to grow) so that's what I'm proposing a party to grow seeds (okay I'm not great with the naming stuff) Let me see if I can figure out how to make a subproject. No rules, but I propose we should shoot for June 1st, 2022.Sgerbic (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here you go Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP) Until June 1st, 2022. Sgerbic (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Dibs on Fred J. Hart stub

I've never heard of this man before - but it's mine. He married the daughter of a wealthy rancher in Salinas. That's my town! I'll try my hand at this radionic guy Fred J. Hart (businessman). I guess I'll be learning all about radionics and Albert Abrams. If anyone have comments to add, please comment here - will get full use of my Newspapers.com subscription (BTW Wikimedia library offers it free).Sgerbic (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding my sandbox (please don't edit without asking - but you are welcome to view) User:Sgerbic/sandbox Sgerbic (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't stand dealing with WMC - so hoping someone will have an answer for me about this. Working on this page I discovered that Hart ran for congress in 1944. This advertisement appeared and I would like to have it uploaded to WMC for use on his Wikipedia page. It's over 75 years old and is low rez. What are the rules for this, and if I can do it, how do I do it? [4]Sgerbic (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

So finding out a lot using Newspapers.com - just trying to put it all in order. I'm currently wondering about how to use (or should I use) a description of him. I've come across a few that were written by reporters that wrote about him, one is on a book that quotes the reporter. They talk about his energy and size like "smart, peppy and gregarious go-getter" another says "a very large, strong, impressive-looking man" and another "impression of being an English prizefighter with lots of energy and reserve force" and so on. All these descriptions of Hart can be attributed, and I think that it helps the reader picture the man and understand why he seemed to be involved in so much and seemed to always be in charge. And because I don't have a photo, and am unlikely to find one, having this on the Wikipedia page would be helpful. But I'm not sure where to add it? It wouldn't be under career or early history (which I can't seem to find) maybe under personal life? Thoughts on this would be appreciated.Sgerbic (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That ad might be public domain due to the absence of copyright notice specific to the ad. Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement might be most appropriate. (Any content you can find that was first published prior to 1927 in the US is public domain by default). Other images of Hart include here and one from 1925 (although there needs to be credible evidence of publishing, not just creation, to use common PD rationale). Other outlines of his life and family can be found here and here (the former published by the National Health Federation), that can aid in seeking reliable sources and due weight. There seem to be a lot of mentions in the California Digital Newspaper Collection, which might supplement sources not covered by Newspaper.com. Lastly, Find a Grave and Ancestry.com are generally unreliable sources, or primary sources at best. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't stand dealing with WMC I'd like to avoid it too now but cannot tell which WMC this is about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just too complicated - Weapons of Mass Confusion seems a better name - I would rather have a root canal than deal with the licensing issues with WikiMedia Commons. I'm not kidding - I feel faint just thinking about it. And I've uploaded hundreds of photos and videos, but they were all from my camera. Sigh. Thank you Animalparty! I was reading the first one from the NHF probably at the same time you were writing this post. The others are all new to me. I have my sandbox above for anyone to see me work. I hadn't heard of the California Digital Newspaper Collection before, that is really cool, maybe they will have the San Jose archives that are missing from Newspapers.com? I also have a subscription to Archive.com. And I have found a lot of clippings, I tend to fall into rabbit holes and am making sure I have something to support all the basic claims. I am using FindAGrave to support him being born in Tacoma and his middle name is James. I eventually found the Tacoma reference but it is on the NHF site. I also have an Ancestry link to show the date of his second marriage to Dorothy. So they are used, but it's not such a big deal what they are supporting.

I am at the part where I need to start on his joining the Abrams world of radionics. I've not heard of this before so it's going to really slow me down. What perplexed me was that he got involved in it because his wife had breast cancer. So then I thought when was this, and did she survive? Then I realized she died in 1962, and then another wife appeared in 1963, so which wife was it? Finally I read about him getting involved in Abrams work in the 1950s when his wife got cancer. And Hart created the foundation in 1955. NHF writes that his wife died because he could not get Abrams treatment, but the timing of that does not make sense as she was alive about 10 years after her diagnosis of cancer, and that is a good long time for someone in the 1950s, she had had surgery but I don't think anything else. It's going to take me longer than I thought to sort it out. So if anyone ... hint hint hint wanted to upload some images for me to WikiMediaCommons, I would be most grateful (and I'll report for a root canal).

BTW what are your thoughts on weaving in some kind of physical description as I mentioned above? Sgerbic (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OMG I just thought to look on WMC and see if there was anything, and there is! It's not as cool as the ones that AnimalParty! found, but at least there is something. [5] and one of Herrold - I'll put it in until I can get one of Hart. Sgerbic (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I sure wish that this content was available for use on WikiMedia Commons. A lot of good it's doing stuck in a carton that you have to go and look at in person and can't photograph. The papers on the reserach they were doing with low level radio frequency energy to cancerous mice and measured the size of the mice tumors is also included here. It says the information is restricted till 2019. I think I have read about this. [6] Sure wish the photos were uploaded at least. Sgerbic (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I should be done by now but it is so confusing. The years are all over the place. From what I can gather, Hart's wife Eva got breast cancer and had surgery and then was dying of it and Hart wanted to treat his wife with some medical device and the AMA shut him down. After Eva's death he opened up the National Health Foundation. This is all from the NHF website. But then it also says that Fred got interested in Abrams work in 1916 to cure her cancer. They only married in 1914 and had a daughter then. But she for sure didn't die till 1962 (I have her obit) so ???? I just emailed the NHF and asked them if the years on their website were correct. I'm hoping they will correct the website and not just email me back. I didn't tell them why I wanted to know, just that the way they worded the website it appears that everything even Eva's death happened in 1955. He was ordered by the AMA to stop treating Eva and others in 1955 (according to the NHF website) but according to his daughter's "papers", the daughter learned to use the machines and inherited the machines from her dad. So if Fred was shut down by the AMA in 1955, and still had the machines, and even his daughter knew how to use the machines, then why did he stop treating Eva privately at home? If he did and she lived till 1962 but was marked as "dying" in 1955, then that seems like something the foundation would be bragging about. At least now in 2022 they would mention this as everyone is now dead who could be in trouble. The website does say that he was busted in 1962 for using the machines. (I'll copy this over to the Hart talk page - but wanted to get your thoughts on this) Like what do I do if they email me the correct information but their website stays at 1916? Should I just only mention that on the talk page and leave the years out of it? But without the years it is even more confusing and does not fully tell the story of Fred Hart. I mean he was a successful businessman in real estate and was great with radio stations, why devote his life to radionics? Sgerbic (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting a lot closer to finishing this now - anyone want to pretty please upload those images to WMC that were linked above by AnimalParty? I would but I'm scared to. Sgerbic (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Well the story gets more confusing - because apparently according to the EMF website the wife Eva found out she had a cancerous tumor and no mention of it being removed, but maybe it was. She persisted with "symptoms" and then went to the Abrams clinic. She had a test done with one of their machines (a test that the FDA later said was worthless) and she was treated with the Oscillociast and "spinal adjustments and diet" and recovered. This would have been in the late 1930s. So two different stories I guess. I assume that she got cancer again in the 1960's and they wanted to treat her with this radionics instead of regular medical practices from that era, it was refused (but he still had the machines at hand) and the FDA made him stop using them in 1962 the same year Eva died. Hopefully this will all straighten out with new information I will find. Sgerbic (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

All done! Put a fork in it and left my thoughts on the talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Scully - extreme undue bias

Dear Skeptics: The article Frank Scully as currently written looks like a textbook example of how skeptics (or anybody) should NOT make a Wikipedia article. It devotes virtually the entire article to describing and "debunking" an aspect that was mentioned in a few columns and a book by someone most known for humor writing and screenplays. It appears that almost no effort has ever been made to examine the totality of sources and appropriate weight to grant any aspect, rather the lamentable trend of hyper focusing on the salacious and easily debunkable has been followed. Scully's relatively lengthy New York Times obituary gives all of three sentences to his (poorly received) writing on flying saucers. His brief obituary in Time magazine describes him as "Frank Scully, 72, author and columnist, who lost a leg to osteomyelitis and a lung to tuberculosis but made the most of his 30 years in and out of hospitals by writing Fun in Bed, Bedside Manna and Just What the Doctor Ordered, three bestsellers of the '30s that combined puzzles, good-humored jokes and vignettes for bedsore patients." No UFO mumbo jumbo. There are no BLP issues since the subject has been dead since the 60s, but keep this in mind when experiencing the urge to debunk a UFO proponent: the content found in skeptical/UFO-related literature may be a small, myopic fraction of the coverage in reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The history of the article shows a number of editors contributing. What evidence do you have that they are skeptics? - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What a sad page. Since 2013 no one has taken the time to fix this? I just removed the empty area. Someone should do a rewrite of this sorry page. I'm working on Fred J. Hart at the moment.Sgerbic (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record - Never heard of this guy before, but what a cool name. He sounds like someone who should have a TV Cop show! Sgerbic (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, reading this again - I thought that --Animalparty! was calling dibs on this rewrite, now that I read it again, I'm not sure that is true? Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they were saying this article is an example of undue weight added by “skeptics” and warning against urges to “debunk”. However, here’s the original stub: [7], and here’s the first expansion of the flying saucer content by Dr Fil: [8], who it seems is definitely not a “skeptic”: [9]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I read Someone should do a rewrite? Well, I'm about to condense the article a bit, with some sourced boilerplate info added (not much is available, unfortunately) but retaining some of the flying saucer material. I will also remove the FBI memo stuff, as it might be of interest/relevance to some other pages but in this article seems a bridge too far. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Look forward to what you do with it JoJo - thank you for taking this on.Sgerbic (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand - why would AnimalParty! warn us? The page was created in 2006 way before I started editing. I don't "debunk" here on Wikipedia, I only use the sources available to write the page as it leads to being written. Once the changes are made, then it is open for change and/or discussion. I expect that is how all participants in this project would do so also. I don't look for weight, it exists or it does not. Just don't understand why an editor would feel the need to bring a badly written page to our attention if they weren't going to get started on it?Sgerbic (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think LuckyLouie provided an explanation above, and I further suggest that we (insert Elsa here) let it go. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks JoJo now I have that song stuck in my head. Sgerbic (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This thread was not directed at any one person but to the whole community as a reminder; and whether the article was made by UFO fans or foes, it exhibited the danger of myopic focus on a relatively small aspect of a biography. Over-reliance on books about UFOs (whether skeptical or credulous) can skew the emphasis. The article is better now, thanks.--Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Blood stasis

I'm looking at the Blood stasis stub (BS) with the aim of re-writing it. I first cleaned up the dirty little stub and went to the chinese-language obituary and (Google) translated it to confirm its veracity. (It makes for interesting reading). I've found several journal articles written in support of BS, some of which I am planning to include. These were all written by scientists or clinicians involved with TCM and / or TCM institutions. I've also found some good counter-arguments at Science-Based Medicine with links to PubMed articles. Does anybody have any other ideas? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Cleaned up the Dirty little stub" LOL - Where's the photos Wyatt? Sgerbic (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Careful Wyatt you know that this will just lead to you writing the page for qi stagnation and heart qi. If so I defiantly want to see some photos, or drawings or something. I'm glad the word "important" has been removed, those peacock words do sneak in, and they need to be washed out. Sgerbic (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Um... I did not remove it, only move it into a POV attribution: TCM practicioners believe it is an important underlying pathology --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Much better Hob.Sgerbic (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Jimminy crickets Wyatt! You have just finished this rewrite and I'm still fussing on my first one. Go ahead and make me look bad already. Actually go ahead and make me look bad. I have a busy day today and don't think I'll finish Fred, I'm at the point where I have a lot of reading to do.Sgerbic (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wyatt is your next rewrite going to start with a C? Sgerbic (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Next up Ruth Drown

While finishing up the Fred Hart page I stumbled on the Ruth Drown Wikipedia page. It's also someone found guilty of using one of these radio devices, except this one had even less moving parts, two wires, one went to the human. I like working on American's because I like to use Newspapers.com to find citations. I think this will be a lot quicker than Fred was, probably not as quick as Wyatt, but I'll give it a go. No photos could be found on WMC. So probably none. Sgerbic (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am DONE with Ruth - super interesting - would love to find the court transcripts to read. I'm going to be away from my desktop for a bunch of days doing a good deed for my sister so I will not be rewriting another page for a bit. But I'll start thinking about it. Sgerbic (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not so stubby

Hello all. Frustrated at clicking on articles in the Stubs category and finding the article is 10 paragraphs long, I went through all the stubs starting with A, re-assessing two-thirds of them. In the off chance that someone would like to check my work, I reassessed these as B-class: Bernard Acworth, Julia Belluz (ok doesn't start with A but did it anyway), Autologous blood therapy. C-class: 7 Wonders Museum, Affranchi (although I have no idea why it’s of interest to the project), Apostacon, Apport (paranormal), Arthur Findlay College. Start-class: After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond (redirected to authors's article). Also removed a bunch of old assessment notices from redirect pages and other admin thingies.

And I said I wouldn't do assessments... if it's ok, I'd like to keep going. Feedback welcome.

Robincantin (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Robin - I know your frustration - it took awhile for me to find Fred, which led me to Ruth and then I found a bunch more in that same radionics category. I think I found a bunch of ideas in the "see also" on Frank Hart's page, plus the machines I think need work. I'm glad someone is cleaning up the list, not that I think lists are such a great idea, but when you are looking for an idea they might be handy. Somedays the stubs are everywhere or nothing looks interesting. Sgerbic (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Robincantin: @Sgerbic: I also found that and I was about to comment on it. I also found a few pages where the talk page refers to a main page that no longer exists because the main page has been merged with another page. Should we then change the ratings on that talk page to match the merged page? Ideas? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: @Sgerbic: I've done A through D so far, should be done in a week or two. I think there's no point in keeping an assessment notice on a page that has been merged or is now a redirect. If the page it's now referring to already has its own assessment information, I just delete the whole block from the original page and review the one on the new destination page. It the new page doesn't have assessment info, I usually (if appropriate) cut and paste the old block on the talk page of the new or merged article - and re-assess. I think it makes sense (does it?). I carry over notices from other wikiprojects but don't change their assessment. They may have different criteria, I don't know, although they probably just haven't looked at it in years. Robincantin (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Make it so, Mr Sulu. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a lot of these pages haven't been looked at in years. Assessments only work if there is a gang of people looking to keep everything fresh and tidy. Sgerbic (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So what's the deal with this page https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Skepticism.html? I'm looking it over (using "stub" as a search term and finding pages that I just rewrote. They are NOT stubs and I removed the word "stub" from the talk page, so how do we change what is on this form? Sgerbic (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hummmm - maybe I'm wrong, it's happened before ... today .... in the last hour, but now I'm looking at the Fred Hart page that I know is no longer a stub is listed under "Resolved articles" so I suspect maybe this URL is pulling from WP? It does say it was updated March 8th. That would be VERY cool if we could whittle away at this page. Sgerbic (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anybody advise what the proper etiquette is here ... if I expand a Stub article, I have always avoided changing the classification myself (that would be like marking your own homework; I can't be objective). But if I just leave it, years could go by and nobody notices that it needs to be reclassified, and in the meantime it clutters up WikiProject lists, etc. Is there some way to flag an article as needing re-assessment?--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they are relying on psychic messages or remote viewing? Sgerbic (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anytime I have expanded a stub from one or two lines to a few paragraphs, added several references, and did other MOS improvements like "See also" and ELs, I have simply removed the stub category with an edit summary such as "no longer a stub". Ditto for removing various maintenance templates that no longer apply, especially if they are old. Just remove the templates and use edit summaries like "now reasonably referenced", "weight problems addressed", etc. or appropriate. If somebody really objects, they will you can request they take it up on the Talk page where you can ask them for specifics regarding the issues they feel need fixing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked at the Help Desk, and the redoubtable admin Cullen328 said "I have no hesitation in upgrading any article from stub to start if I have expanded it significantly or anyone else has done so." If he says so, that's good enough for me.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

just do it with confidence and a smile Gronk! Sgerbic (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, change it when you're done please. Just don't get carried away and change it to a Good article ;) Robincantin (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

William Summerlin rewrite

I think I have just found my next stub rewrite. It checks all my favorite boxes, American, biography, old and very interesting. "Painting the mouse" I've not heard of that before - nor this person, but hopefully I can spend some time getting to know him. William Summerlin, nice to meet you. Sgerbic (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Summerlin's entry here includes references you might find helpful. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo - now I'm looking for the word to title the category under the "case" and "early life and career" I've seen a word used but I just can't think of it right now. For the moment I'm using "afterwards". Ideas? Sgerbic (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have seen "Aftermath" used a lot as a header. Personally I think it's a little dramatic, but YMMV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "Aftergeometry." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose there is time to think about it and also it is easily changed if someone comes up with a better word. Sgerbic (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic (talk, How about "Investigation"? Robincantin (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I've come up with after nearly being finished. "Early life and career" which has no early life that I can find, I don't even know where he was from. So I might just change this to "Career". The next section is "Investigation and repercussions" and I really would like to call it the "Sh!t hits the fan" and then the last section is called "Aftermath" which might be changed, but I think it is the best for now. Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is weird - I'm looking at this article [10] and it has four linked citation numbers at the beginning, I opened them up in another tab and they all were the same citation, the same one I was currently looking at.Sgerbic (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Click on any of the citations and a list appears on the right hand side.

Citation 1 is: Hixson, J. (1976) The Patchwork Mouse. Joseph Hixson Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York. pp. 4–5

Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ahhhh - so clever you are Sgerbic (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is DONE! Done I tell you! Anyway, so interesting - way more than I had thought when I stumbled across it. I'm going to leave my thoughts on the talk page and move on to something else. Thanks for your help all.Sgerbic (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Estrogen dominance

I've done some work on the Estrogen dominance stub but there really isn't much there. Does anybody know of a reputable source that discusses it or the symptoms attributed to it? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Lady Sheba PROD

I spent some time fussing on the Lady Sheba page and as you can see from the PROD I just left, there isn't anything I could find. Sad because I was really looking forward to quoting from the find a grave site that says her ashes were mingled with the ashes of one of her books and scattered around the graveyard. [11] I rarely try to delete pages, so please let me know if I did this one wrong. Sgerbic (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

[12], and some mention in [13] and [14]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The article claims she founded the American Order of the Brotherhood of the Wicca which is doubtful a woman would do. More likely it was called the American Order of the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Wicca. UPI with an Atlanta location did a story saying a young woman was murdered at its headquarters (an old two-story house) in May 1979. No mention of Lady Sheba or Bell. Probably the group folded after that scandal. The police described it as a commune and cult. 5Q5|^✉ 17:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Her Wiccan organization has an entry in J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, with a bit of background on her. Users in Michigan or Minnesota WikiProjects might have insight or access to sources. Also, don't know if you were being sarcastic re: ash-scattering but you should never quote anything on Find a Grave, except perhaps an etching on a gravestone itself (see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL). All the text is user-generated, the birth and death dates are often unsourced (sometimes they don't even match the gravestone), known spouses and family members are often absent, and photos of historic people are sometimes wrong. Sometimes there are sourced, transcribed obituaries, attached newspaper articles, or other references to more reliable biographical entries that can be used on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Some significant coverage in a 1972 Star Tribune piece (Part 1, Part 2). Looks like there might be more sources available via Newspapers.com. I'll sift through them sometime in the next 48 hours or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay now that it has been removed from deletion. Who is going to get to work on rewriting it? The sources have all been handed to you. Sgerbic (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I have to make a note on how you did citation #4 I had been doing this citation all wrong, that looks so much neater and retrievable. I had wondered how to add the second page, now I know. Thanks! Sgerbic (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Next project for the SSSPP - Ernest H. Taves

I've not heard of this person before - and I don't think he was ever a CSI Fellow - but he was on the Skepticism stub list. It looks like it might be interesting, so I'll give it a go. BTW I went though the stub category list and boy were there a lot that were rewritten some time ago but the stub tag wasn't removed. So now it is an even 200 items on the list that are awaiting a rewrite. Sgerbic (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) All done! I left my notes on the talk page. Looking for my next one now. Sgerbic (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Michael W. Friedlander

I've looked at Michael W. Friedlander and the page has some potential to be rewritten, so I'm claiming it as my next project. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as stubs go that is in real good shape. Some of the ones I was looking at my yesterday were only a couple sentences long. :-) Sgerbic (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Its looking a bit better now. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well done Wyatt! Sgerbic (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Inactive WikiProject Skepticism editors

I removed all editors that had joined this project that have not edited English Wikipedia in over a year. We lost 77 people which is sad because looking at their interest I would have loved to have them here. I picked a year just because it seemed like it would be easy to figure out. I reviewed other Wikipedia projects to see how they manage their inactive members so we are in line with them. Of course if someone decides to start editing Wikipedia again and they notice that they have been marked "inactive" in this project, they can just move their name back to active. This appears to be the first time anyone has attempted to clean up the participants before. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants So we went from 228 to 151, and there were many that haven't edited Wikipedia in 11 months, so we will probably loose more in the next few months.

My question is how do we let these remaining 151 know that we are attempting to Rejuvenate this project? If they have this page on their watchlist then that would be the obvious way (if they look at their watchlist that is). You would think that if they signed onto the project with the express goal of being on a team that focuses in this area and wants to be active they would be excited to come back and help out. There is a lot of work to be done. I know it is still early days, but I would hope to see their shiny happy faces here on talk sooner rather than later. Can we put out a notice somewhere? What is the protocol to tag people? Can we tag 150 people and let them know we are waiting for them? Your thoughts please. Sgerbic (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is beyond my pay grade - but Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Newsletter has a newsletter that looks dormant (sad) and editors can opt out of the delivery if they want. This is what their last one looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Newsletter/January 2012 WAY MORE time was put into that than I would ever want to do. But maybe we could put out a summary of sorts? Sgerbic (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh about that Newsletter idea --- I call "not it" Sgerbic (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest researching other Project pages and their talk pages to see how they handled the issue of inactive members. Might be some good ideas. 5Q5|^✉ 11:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I could look at a few more and see if there are other ideas. I had only looked at 4-5 when I decided to copy what they had done. Possibly there is something really different? @PaleoNeonate wasn't it you years ago that left a message on my talk page asking me (and others) to come edit on this project? If so what was it you said and what kind of response did you get? Sgerbic (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible, I remember trying to make the project more active at some point and to reorganize a bit the pages, encouraged by an effort from KarlPoppery just before. But there also was someone working on an experiment to automatically welcome editors for WikiProjects. I was one of the participants representing this one. It was a bit tricky as new editors could be invited when this project doesn't necessarily suit everyone, if I remember. If you want I'll look and try to come up with more details sometime next week, link what I'm talking about, etc. Around that time I also wrote a few suggestions of regular tasks to do on the project's main page (like patrol/tag new article/general alerts, etc). I still consider myself part of WP:SKEPTIC but no longer regularly read this page or patrol new articles with potentially interesting keywords (links to these should still be on the main page I think). I could dedicate more time to WP back then. —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well when you mentioned it to me way back then, I started to get more interested. I did put it on my watchlist and have been following the suggestions that come though that way. Lots of interesting pages I've never heard of before. So it helped me. I have participated in many discussions and AfD's because of this project. But what it was lacking was more discussions and less assignments and ranking things. We join a team mainly because we want the interaction, otherwise we would just edit these pages on our own and never mention them to anyone. So the social aspect is important, at least to me, if it bothers others then they probably will just skip this part.

I'm excited to get to know others here, and already I've learned many things that I would not have. I'm not so keen on a welcoming auto thing, if we want to do that personally that seems to make sense, we aren't a big group and it is getting smaller all the time. When I first started with the member list it was 250 people. Once I took off everyone who hasn't edited Wikipedia in six months we dropped to 150. And after I posted on all 149 (didn't post on my page) my last night, we have seen @TedDougal'n'Jack, @Nuretok, @Formaldude, @Doczilla and @Bduke update themselves on the active list (actually I think Formaldude is brand new, how did you find us Formaldude? Welcome BTW) We lost three and one of them said they just don't have time but wished us luck with the project.

So maybe we can keep this alive and get some serious work done which is the goal of the project after all. Even if people don't rewrite stubs on the subproject, I hope they at least participate in the discussions. Getting feedback and questions answered or as has already been done, make suggestions that others have not heard of before. I'm surprised at all the tech we have to use like what @Novem Linguae suggested. I was really surprised at the CA newspaper site that @AnimalParty! mentioned, I had never heard of that before. Anyway, we are getting started. Sgerbic (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Your talk page blast appeared on a couple pages in my watchlist, I think it was Shibbolethink‎'s I read specifically. I was happy to join as I'm pretty interested in some of the topics covered here. ––FormalDude talk 06:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow I hadn't thought that someone would see the post on someone else's talk page. I really hadn't though that people watch other talk pages, but again I'm learning something new. Well please jump right in we sure can use some help. Sgerbic (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a pretty avid talk page stalker. ––FormalDude talk 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow - Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Members "This is a manually compiled list. If you have constructively participated in this project, feel free to add yourself. You may also wish to list your specific interests or areas in which you would like to participate. Participants with no edits to pages within scope within the last year or who are inactive for 6 months may be removed from the list of active members." If we did this - our project would be down to about a dozen editors. Sgerbic (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)19:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This group wants all the members in alphabetical order - oh boy that would be fun. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Members - it uses a chart which is very neat looking - but it has a bunch of "unsorted" people at the bottom and it says it throws people off the listed if they have not edited on the project for three months. And it is all done manually. That's some work. How do you tell if someone has edited something in the project or not? I was removing people who have not edited Wikipedia in total after a year. Maybe I should make that 6 months? Sgerbic (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan wants them listed in the order they joined. No idea if our group is in any kind of order or not. Sgerbic (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Gee - I keep finding inactive projects - This one Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic moves inactive members to a group after a year of non-participation. But the last time they updated that list was 2017 - so I guess they should be on that inactive list. ;-) Pretty much no editing happening there. Too bad because that might be a group I would like to join, I've written many pages for magicians that also happen to be skeptics (a lot of overlap) Sgerbic (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay the last one I'm looking at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains (damn there is a project for everything) and you guessed it, dormant. So they have a chart and list the talk/contribs for each member of the group. That seems to be the only thing they have done in months is to set that up. With this said - I guess we decide to do whatever we want. I think maybe I will start thinning the herd ever further and remove people from the group who have not edited Wikipedia in general in 6 months. Then if that is a more manageable number, send each one a message on their talk page asking them to please come back and help with the project and that we are trying to revitalize the group. I'll try to get to this in the next couple days, but am happy to allow someone else to take it on. Same with the message to send people, ideas are enouraged. Sgerbic (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a bot-maintained list of active editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Skepticism. gnu57 20:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow - I had no idea, thanks. Some of these editors aren't members of the project. Since there seems to be a bot for nearly everything, is there one that can spot those on the Wikiproject membership and if they have been editing pages that are tagged with the WikiProject tag? Sgerbic (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'm all done - I think we are at 124 people now. I have added them all to a chart and alphabetized them. I did this manually so it is VERY possible I messed up the alphabet part. Please someone check my work. Also I know many of you are much more talented than I am with fancy charts and such. If you would like to mess with the chart, add color or something, please do so. Next I'm going to contact these people and ask them to come back to the project. Sgerbic (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. It is good that you are trying to get the Project up and running again. I will try to help when I can, but I am 83 and my memory is not what it was. Good job I resigned as an admin!! --Bduke (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

For possible increased efficiency in the future, there's a way to mass message folks on Wikipedia. You can make a request at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders. Hope this helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

After I had sent out about a dozen of these notices I thought that there must have been a better way of doing it. But I wanted it done before I went to bed, and just did it, brain numbing but it's done and I hope to never do that again. :-) But thank you for telling everyone, we learn so much from each other, everyone seems to have a bit of skill or knowledge that no one else has. That's why we need to be a team. Sgerbic (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Bduke - glad to have you with us. Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC on how to include allegations of Chinese government undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)