User talk:Second Quantization

Pagans

Hi Wolfie,

I actually really did know people who were real pagans (their family tradition of paganism going back to a persecuted escape from Ireland in the 1600's). They were rural farming people in an isolated area on the East Coast of the USA when I met them. They practiced a Celtic/pagan religion passed down for generations in their family. I knew them personally. Most had never been to College and were dirt (poor/small-scale) farmers. Although one friend of mine from that community was a college student.

It was a very tiny community, a few hundred people at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.34.8 (talk • contribs)

Interesting, but the question is how far back beyond that does it go, and how much is family legend (we all have them) :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. I have always had some interest in Irish history and I though the neo-Celtic stuff came in vogue in Ireland in the late 1800's and early 1900's (during the times of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce and the like, although Yeats embraced it and Joyce held it at arms length). All of that as a part of the revolutionary movements of the time.

But these people that I knew in the US told me their tradition went way back and had come over from Ireland with their ancestors in the 1600's (sixteen hundreds). But perhaps even they had their own version of neo-paganism even then. There was a certainly a kind of neo-pagan longing in Irish nationalism/seperatism in the early 1900's. Perhaps there were also earlier versions of this in the 1600's. 208.57.34.8 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention. The people that I knew actually practiced this religion. They invited me to one of their farms on a special holiday and we had a feast on that day. There were a lot of traditions discussed but I did not pay enough attention to the details. **It was a living religion for them. Wherever/whenever it originated.208.57.34.8 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a family tradition to say that they've been doing it since the 1600s, but that's four hundred years ago, does anyone (save royalty) know their family tree that well to be able say what they did with certainty? All you need is one exaggerator or person who makes a mistake about dates in that family chain. I'd be curious about where they say they came from and what evidence there is, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asaram Bapu's son's comment

Hello. You removed the comment from Narayan Sai (Asaram's son Narayan Sai has dismissed the girl as "mentally unstable", saying that she bathes for more than two-and-half hours.<ref>{{cite news|title=Girl's claim of sexual assault by Asaram seems true: cops|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Jaipur/Girl-s-allegations-against-Asaram-Bapu-likely-true-cops/Article1-1114219.aspx|newspaper=Hindustan Times|date=August 28, 2013}}</ref>), saying that it can be added only when there is significant coverage. If you Google "narayan sai mentally unstable"[1], you will see how well-covered his comments have been in the news. What are your thoughts now?--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the sort of coverage as the main issue is getting. I see perhaps 3 newspapers compared with the perhaps 100s for the main issue. I'd suggest discussing the text on the talk page and gaining consensus. Gather the sources, and present your argument there being mindful of WP:BLP and how damaging false claims can be to people, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The allegations may or may not be false but the fact that his son has made these crass comments is a matter of video record. Both the father and the son have on record been very critical and highly dismissive of the 16 year-old complainant. As you can see from the article, the subject is not new to criminal proceedings. There are many criminal cases going on against him.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea for you or anyone else to make judgements on the issue but rather attempt to neutrally cover the incident without letting personal feelings get in the way, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know how you counted 3 because Google News (and Google Search) is showing dozens of newspapers covering the "mentally unstable" comment as a headline.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I see I would not classify as a newspaper, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half of them are printed newspapers, a quarter are news agencies (CNN-IBN, NDTV etc) and the rest are Internet news publishers. If something has been clearly said in video broadcasts to the media, I don't think it is all that disputable.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an allegation was made and whether we cover it in the encyclopaedia are different questions, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark McMenamin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verify (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) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trolls

After I discovered his inglorious history as a notable troll on various sites (where he used the same handle in addition to one other) and brought this to his attention, I thought he was going to say, "LOL took you long enough". But he maintains that he is sincere, so there's not much I can do. I don't think he is sincere due to the seemingly exaggerated absurdity of his arguments/behavior which match the details of the trolling techniques he has boastfully exposited in the past.

Since he's not making edits we can only wait. If he starts, expect problems for sure. Engagement seems futile, on purpose. He also expressed a clear pro-Sheldrake point of view on the TED blog, which forbodes a perfect storm. Vzaak (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has now admitted that he's here to do "a little field study", which is exactly what I suspected and brought to his attention earlier. It looks "trolling 2.0". I suppose waiting is still the most practical option. At least I know not to engage him. Vzaak (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest taking it to ANI or similar and provide the evidence you have shown. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to perform sociology experiments by trolling people; that he has in the past taken controversial positions purely for the purposes of creating disputes. I may do it myself later today, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be difficult to make a case until he actually starts editing. He's had over a decade of experience doing this stuff, and I fear an ANI will be endless (or worse, may fail) unless it is tied to his edits of actual articles. Vzaak (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I see several edits that have been rev/del'd or oversighted, what's going on? The same claims? Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming so, but I was not involved in those discussions IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you meant to restore the discussion after it got oversighted (look like unlucky timing). Vzaak (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only the link was removed. it wasn't oversighted, just WP:REVDEL. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

Will you look at Template:Did you know nominations/H. Hugh Fudenberg, a subject of fringe science, to ensure nothing egregious has been missed. In particular, I believe some form of categorization is needed to make it clear that these views are fringe. It may need an inclusion of counterclaims; I do not claim any expertise in making these determinations. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>Lurker decloaks< - I had a quick look at this and made a few changes ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a suggestion. I'll notify SkepticalRaptor who is perhaps the most clued in editor I am aware of when it comes to vaccination related issues. I'll most likely offer more suggestions after as well as I am interested in working on the article a little, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and your stalkers as well. Your learned presence in the discussion improves my confidence in reaching a best outcome.—John Cline (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been withdrawn and archived. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward or the AE request filed upon the advice of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should see this

See [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfie,

Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience

I think we are making good headway with our discussion. Thank you for that. Ronz has indicated that since he doesn't approve of the entry in any manner -- in spite of the reliable sources -- there will be no entry. I cannot imagine this is how Wikipedia functions; where a lone dissenter can dictate what goes into an article. I respect that you took out the entry in order to attempt to achieve an consensual version, but how can we ever achieve consensus when one editor has already decided that there will be no entry?

Also, here is the preview of the book on Google where you can read most of the chapter in question. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are processes to achieve consensus but before I do so I must familiarise myself fully with the source. I think I understand Ronz's concern and I have a proposal in mind to deal with the issues. This will take a few days when I have them spare (probably the weekend), IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Enjoy the read! I found it to be fascinating. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request closed

A request for arbitration enforcement to which you were a party has been closed. The result of this request is that Littleolive oil is topic banned for six months from the subject of transcendental meditation, broadly construed. IRWolfie is indefinitely banned from speculating in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in the transcendental meditation area, broadly construed, except that concerns about such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IRWolfie

I know that you are already fully aware, but felt I should leave you the same message that I am leaving on the talk-page of the other listed members: I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hi IRWolfie. Hope you are well. Thanks for volunteering at Wiikpedia. Regarding your edit here, not sure if you saw that my contributions on 64.40.54.112 (talk · contribs) went back 6 years, all the way to 2007. I'll mention that I have a dynamic IP address, you can see my contribs here if you're curious. I know similar things have been a source of embarrassment and criticism (for violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, etc.) for other people in the past, so I try to give people a heads up when I catch it before others have noticed. Just in case they want to modify their comments. Kind regards. 64.40.54.128 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a serious editor, not a vandal, but you are laboring under the delusion that an exception to our rule against sockpuppetry should be made for you. That's not the case. It is totally proper for other editors to note your socking. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider AGF, BITE or CIVIL relevant here. One can be perfectly civil and assuming good faith to tag editors who appear to have few contributions outside a topic area and are commenting in a discussion (that, after all, is why the tag exists), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]