User talk:ජපස

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! But now I'm hungry. :) jps (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at WT:NJOURNALS

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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.

Scientist

I understand that you don't want to consider Eric Lerner a scientist. But he has a Ph.D., is called a scientist or physicist in a quite a few books and articles. You don't get to be the one to say he's not, just because his scientific viewpoint is outside the mainstream. So leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't have a PhD. The question is, do we have reliable sources which so identify him. Removing a citation needed tag without providing a source for a claim is typically not a good idea. jps (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Yes, I think we should have an ANI, shall I launch it or shall you?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave the dramaboards out of it, so if you want to try to complain there, go ahead. But more to the point: I don't understand what your deal is. You seem to have a completely weird view of how Wikipedia is supposed to function looking at your contributions to the place of power AfD in which you were involved. I'm sensing a pattern of refusal to get the point. What I don't understand is the motivation. Is it that you think Wikipedia is somehow biased against the WP:FRINGE? jps (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one who made the threat. As to the rest, this is not the place to continue the "drama".Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a "threat". It was an honest question. I truly don't know what to make of your tendentiousness. jps (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about your threat of asking for a topic ban (I also hope you make the same threat to any other users continuing the thread about his doctorate).Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I know what you were talking about. I'm telling you that it's an honest question asked to the noticeboard. I don't know what to do about you. I've seen this kind of WP:Source counting coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior before on Wikipedia and each time I've seen it before it only ended with a topic ban imposed. That's why it's a question. Are you going to let up, get the point, etc, or not? You still haven't, for example, admitted that trying to use a creationist book as a reliable source was a mistake on your part. jps (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I am not sure it is not RS for the claim. You have still not provide a source countering the claim he is not a scientist, all you have done is dismiss an RS because it made one (possible) mistake. Do you not see why I might see "fact" triumphing over "verifiabilty" as a problem? I also note you have still not told another user to drop the ball, and indeed changed your comment about the de-rail to say it was only me (after he added his comment). And I have answered your question, yes you should take this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It is this kind of refusal to get the point that I do not understand. At Wikipedia, the WP:ONUS has always on the people who want to include the material (identifying Lerner as a scientist) to find a reliable source. You identified two sources that were not reliable and everyone who commented on your proposed sources agreed that they were not reliable. Now you continue to insist that you are "not sure" whether the sources are reliable or not(!) Instead of listening and taking on board the points myself and others are making, and instead of actually looking for a reliable source (that doesn't have factual errors and is WP:FRIND compliant) for the claim, you proceeded to argue that it is others who should find a source that indicates Lerner is not a scientist(!). That's totally backwards. It's exactly where I lose my patience and wonder whether you are just WP:GAME-ing around. You further continue to provide no explanation as to the motivations behind your strange WP:ADVOCACY, aside from intimating, apparently that you think Wikipedia should be committed to some nonsense warped post-modernity where there is no such thing as facts and verifiability not truth reigns supreme. If that's the case, I really think you should leave this project. jps (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Since when has the times of Israel not been RS?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Since whoever wrote the article failed to do basic factchecking! There is no categorical point in WP:RS for that reason. If The Journal of Infallibility wrote something that was demonstrably incorrect, we would not use it as a reliable source for ideas relating to that topic, even if it were reliable for literally every other point made in the source. jps (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Or is it more up to date then our source in the article, who knows.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is plausible that Lerner has gone out and gotten a PhD without telling anyone but the Times of Israel? Or are you saying that it is equally likely that this is the case compared to the Times of Israel simply fucking up? jps (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that both are equally likely. Yes maybe he lied, maybe they made a mistake, maybe he got it at some time between his book being published and the article in the time (and yes he may not have told anyone, there is no requirement for him too, and lots of people seem to think he has one, so maybe he has told others as well). It does not help that there is a Eric Lerner who has a Phd, just not the same Eric Lerner (I think).Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's our problem. Both are simply not equally likely. This is a position of radical neutrality, WP:NPOVism gone amuck. It's the kind of person who argues that Wikipedia cannot say the world is flat. It is a perspective I am 100% opposed to, and if that's your editorial philosophy, expect me to resist you in Fringe articles quite often. You're not the first editor who has insisted on such a philosophy, but I pride myself on surviving where many of the rest of them have left or been shown the door. I would ask you to reconsider, but in my experience editors like you are so convinced they are right there is no discussion possible. jps (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your prerogative.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As to intimidation, when have I tried to intimidate anyone?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's intimating not intimidating. jps (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As per our discusion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see what, if anything can come of this. jps (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

You have added material after the discussion was closed, can you remover it please.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. So no. jps (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough please read Wikipedia:The Last Word.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no particular desire to end the conversation. I do not mind if you want to continue. I certainly do not need the last word. But when there is an edit conflict, I'm not going to just throw away my contribution simply because someone painted the background purple, you see. You are free to continue discussing with me here that which you do not understand. jps (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

I inadvertently put my response to you between your comment and your signature. Trying to fix it in preview-mode but I'm just fucking it up worse. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the amusing report at the noticeboard as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Chris55 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR Human baby dive reflex

Hello, citing WP:OR as a reason doesn't work if the content is also available on another wikipaedia page. That's why I included the link to Infant swimming. If you could take the time to read it, we would be most grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Infant swimming is a separate page. It is not related to Aquatic ape hypothesis. jps (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] Well, if he did, it probably came as a surprise, since he looks quite content in the pic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen many pictures of drowning people to know whether they look malcontented at the time? jps (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Edward J. Steele

I just came across a user pushing loads of fringe claims at Edward J. Steele and somatic hypermutation. This same user is a fan of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. I am wondering as you know about this field, is the Hoyle Shield article he created notable?

See his edits on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, promotion of Wickramasinghe and Steele 82.132.216.220 (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at Hoyle Shield, seems to me it should be deleted on notability grounds. A google search with quote marks around the name gets a measly 623 results, mostly social media, wiki mirrors and false hits on a band with a similar name. It looks to be mostly a theoretical idea confined to one science project type thing - its literally being built by high school kids. I also noticed that on the official website linked from there, the facilitator of that project is named "William E. (Bill) Smith". The user you are discussiong, who created Hoyle Shield is named "BSmith821" and might be the same person. Seems like they need to be read the COI riot act. --Krelnik (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of Hoyle Shield. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyle Shield. As for Edward Steele, somatic hypermutation and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, I think a biology expert is needed. The articles may be worth keeping, but they definitely need pruning. jps (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Please be careful of WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A bit frustrating that there aren't more people trying to figure out what many of the AAH proponents are saying on the talkpage and why they keep reinserting images even after I've explained the problem. I feel a little like I'm through the looking glass. jps (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please get some perspective. At worst, AAH is wrong. AAH is not evil, it does not promote anything (other than the idea), and AAH is not an attack on a fundamental tenet of science. AAH is quite different from the normal stuff handled by WP:FRINGE. Fight on if you think it is worth your time, but judging by the pushback the issue will end at Arbcom and only the squeaky-clean will survive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My god, I don't think I've ever considered that an idea on Wikipedia was evil! The problem is that AAH proponents are using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. AAH is an interesting subject from the perspective of history of science as well as an object lesson for paleoanthropology. But it is time to rid ourselves of an article which tries to advertise it rather than explain it. jps (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michelle Beltran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Find Me. 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) 09:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS is a random string of characters chosen to avoid meaning."

...but in my religion "9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS?" is the name of the demigod in charge of chamber calliopes... Have you considered using Cthulhu insstead? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind, but I thought that would have been too much on the feeler. jps (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since your username is what it is for the noblest of scientific reasons, and your sig keeps the WP:READER in mind, it's rather ironic how your signature is actually in complete breach of at variance with WP:SIG, though, isn't it? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of WP:SIG is it at variance with? jps (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I'm guessing it's:

When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind:

• A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.

I would argue that my username is easily identified through the ability of the reader to visit my user talk page or the user page. If anyone thinks it would be a better idea to sign my name with something like "9SG", I'd be fine with that too. TBH, I think the account system at Wikipedia is ludicrously out-of-date when compared with modern best practices of websites who have user accounts. What other site uses signatures, FFS? jps (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of our username policy here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It violates Wikipedia:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action." -- Seems that "highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action", I would argue, contradicts your claim. jps (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keywords "own their own". However, combined with your constant name changes, it arguably is a violation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Busybodies and nosy-nancies have argued that in the past, it's true. However, up until now, I have been able to convince admins and bureaucrats (including some that at first expressed discomfort with this situation) that it is not a violation and is, in fact, a good way of avoiding some other problems. What we could all benefit from would be a modern approach to account management, but you'd have to ask mediawiki developers about that. jps (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo jps- or should I say 9SG- I seem to have stirred up a right hornet's nest. I was personally interested in the dichotomy between the actualité of presenting one's case in a scientific manner and the legalese of the 'rule book.' I have no personal opinion (and you were right, the unrecognisability of the name was the aspect I was thinking of), but I would agree that the fundamental rule of sigs (whilst we enjoy them, eh ;)  !!!) is to link to a user page. That's a bright red line. Have a good weekend! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

When I see an argument like "However, combined with your constant name changes, it arguably is a violation", I like to see [A] A timeline of the alleged "constant name changes" and [B] the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that limits name changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon see User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/Previous Account Names, amongst other things. Someone who finds User:joshuaschroeder cannot easily link that account to this one. Likewise for User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. In the deletion log, we're told renaming the user "I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc" to "WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94". So you click on "WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94" and are told no global account of that name exists. If you have the sense of mind to put User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 in the search box, you're AGAIN presented with "WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94" to "9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS". The same issue happen with the next namechange. Jumping through these hoops is something no one should have to do, and will be especially confusing to newbies. (See thread below, where newbies are accused of being incompetent because of this username clusterfuck.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone accuses me of accusing someone else of incompetency for that reason, I want to make it clear that I said that (sincere but limited competence) based on all of what the editor had posted, not based simply on their confusion over the user name. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb is correct that wild goose chases are an occupational hazard for one is deep in the archives, for example. I have had this issue myself in the past when trying to figure out if a new user really was "new". However ridiculous you may find it, this is the way Wikipedia does username changes. To reiterate, I wish there was a better system here for account management. It took me quite a bit of time to arrive at this idea to help me solve some IRL problems with external website harassment and, while not perfect, the status quo is preferable to either having to stick with account names that became the undue focus of harassment or to abandoning Wikipedia completely. Having random string account names has also demonstrably helped. I will not go more into a discussion of the details of my evidence for this on wiki. I hope the peanut gallery understands. jps (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll note here that keeping redirects/creating them after a rename would solve this annoyance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Such a solution would bring about other problems. I don't care one way or another, but as I don't have account creation rights, once the rename goes through and the old account becomes unregistered, I don't think it should be my responsibility to spend my time shepherding the creation of such path redirects. Change the policy if you think it is an issue. jps (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

...at the cost of making off-wicki harassment easier. I myself have encountered harassment in real life because of the content of our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. I can only imagine the hell anyone who edits the GMO conspiracy theories article goes through. Changing your username to avoid harassment is perfectly legitimate, and those of us who might be slightly confused or inconvenienced by the change simply need to accept it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The anti-GMO people are a bit of a bother, but they're hardly the worst offenders. I am actually surprised somewhat who the proponents who cause the most problems are. jps (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to second that. In other places I've seen online, talking about GMO science was likely to get you doxxed, offline harassment, death threats, etc. Outside of maybe attacks towards one editor, I'm pleasantly surprised we haven't attracted people here that are quite as fanatical as I've seen elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:GMO conspiracy theories#who is user jps?. At first, I thought it was trolling, but it sounds more like a sincere user of limited competence. I was about to answer it myself, but then I decided I should just hand it to you. (But if it does turn out to be bad faith, I suggest you just leave it, and I'll promptly take it to ANI.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ta. I tried to respond as forthrightly as possible. jps (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your answer was a very good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Baraminology

I'm proposing at Talk:Baraminology to recreate an article that had been turned into a redirect at your suggestion. I'd like to not act without consensus, so I would appreciate your commenting there. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome...

I was concerned WP had lost you, but happy to see some relatively recent activity on your TP. Hope all is well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP only loses previous usernames of mine. Actually, I think things are going pretty well, if a bit quiet. I completed a clean-up of Aquatic ape hypothesis not too long ago. Would love to get your input. jps (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent article, J - I didn't go through the drill of checking references as normally would occur in a GA or FA review - I just wanted to enjoy the read. 🤓I've always been drawn to the water - lakes and ocean - and have an unwavering fascination for ancestral fishes. The article stirred memories of my earlier research as a documentary filmmaker. Science has made some incredible advances since then, yet there is still so much we don't know about our own [2] diversity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to read this response. You know, those who are angry at the clean-up think that it does an injustice to the idea (which is definitely a fringe theory). The concern was that the article is skewed against the hypothesis. But your response makes me think that people who are coming to the article without knowing about it are not seeing that claimed bias. jps (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• While still on the subject of aquatics...thought you'd like to see my saltwater aquarium. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice! Reminds me of this. jps (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism

I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MystifiedCitizen. jps (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Your recent editing history at Gary Renard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (talk • contribs)

Advice

Hello, 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS. I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of canvassing in which you have started. Would it be possible for you to phrase your notice in a more neutral fashion in the future? In the meanwhile, I will take a look at the current AfD discussion to see if I can/cannot determine a consensus. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a fundamental disagreement about NPOV here at Wikipedia. The claim that users can be "neutral" is somewhat precious. It is, actually, presumptuous. Neutrality in article space is gained through careful research and dispassionate reporting. But every user at Wikipedia has an editorial opinion and it would be dishonest for anyone of them to hide it. So, I reject the notion that "NPOV" applies to notices. What I will say, though, is that it makes sense not to personalize messages. I should have, on reflection, separated the two issues. jps (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I wanted to commend you for following WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE. It is highly appreciated. If we can start a conversation about my concerns, I would be appreciative, but even if we don't, simply the fact that you came here for a discussion is something I'm happy to see. jps (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the notion of what you are suggesting, but that's another story as they are "two issues", like you mentioned. If you would like to share your concerns with me, I'll be happy to contribute my opinion. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 14:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that WP:CANVAS is poorly written, especially when it comes to the idea of "campaigning". Trying to influence other people is our goal. The problem with "canvassing" on Wikipedia is that consensus is left up to those who show up. So if you preferentially choose users to notify on the basis of your knowledge of their pre-determined opinions, you end up with a skewed result. But the notice itself should not be an issue. To say otherwise is to give short shrift to the intellectual faculties of the users at this website. jps (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in...

User:MjolnirPants/Drafts/Savannah hypothesis. Feel free to edit away, and to invite others to do so, as well. I have done one thing "funny" there that I'm hoping will catch on; I've inserted all the references in a hidden <div></div> container under the references heading, because it makes the text of the article so much easier to read without being broken up every few sentences by three lines of {{cite}} script. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD

It doesn't look like you've been notified by the nominator (groupsucle), so you may want to check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GMO_conspiracy_theories. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Clever name, but....

...it's hard enough trying to remember IP user names. I don't know any people who can remember a long string of letters and numbers, much less an unfamiliar trio of symbols - hell it's all I can do to remember my phone number and address. Hopefully there's a simple word somewhere underneath ජපස for us symbol-impaired users to easily recall if they need to ping you...or is that what you're trying to avoid? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd posting slanders about you

There is a banned Wikipedia user and coldfusion advocate Abd who has been posting your personal details, Wikipedia history and dox on internet forums and also his personal blog. I will not link to this forum or his blog but Abd is a known pseudoscience promoter [3] with a notorious online history. He is currently on Wikiversity where he defends and works with the banned sock-puppeteer Ben Steigmann. As this guy has been slandering you in various places I was just giving you a heads up. He is currently doing the same to me so I know how it feels. He also likes to stalk peoples families and post deliberate slanders about them. He is banned on Wikipedia but Wikiversity still hosts his pseudoscientific content, he wrote most of their cold fusion article. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd's new slander about you post. Can you help get this guy banned from Wikiversity? He defames skeptical Wikipedia editors on his blog, he writes slanders, falsehoods and misinformation, he is banned from Wikipedia yet Wikiversity hosts his nonsense. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There are people with better connections who watch this use talkpage than I who can maybe deal with some of the Wikiversity stuff. I try to steer clear of that website when possible. jps (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd has removed the slander about you on his personal website because I complained, but the stuff he posted on two forums still remains. He has now changed his original post about you and turns it into a hit-piece against me. His original post about you is very different to his now deceptive live version. How now claims I have 'harassed' him and that it is 'libel' to archive his original website posts. Indeed, he has entirely spun this round to try and hide his old blog post.

He now tries to make out I am the bad guy for signing up to Wikipedia and informing you about his article. He even promote a wacky conspiracy theory I am responsible for his Rationalwiki article (I'm not). He accuses me of being a paid Wikipedia Guerrilla Skeptic, a banned Wikipedia user (someone called AP), and an admitted schizophrenic (all these claims are false). I show this to you as an interesting case study. In no place in his new post does he apologize to writing slander about you. With his old article entirely changed, anyone now visiting his website will instead think I have been harassing him and yourself. This is serious deception and misinformation from abd. This is just another example for me of why irrational people cannot be trusted. I will not be further responding here but I hope you see this is the sort of deception I have to put with from abd.

He also claims it is 'illegal' to archive his blog posts and I will get in trouble for this. He was banned on Wikipedia for this sort of behaviour, and as to this present day he defends the banned sock-puppeteer and pseudoscience promoter Ben Steigmann and claims I have 'attacked' this user. Unfortunately he is still active on meta-wiki and has a whole slanderous 'project' about skeptical users over there. He claims he is emailing you and that I am the guilty party. He no doubt will write 2000 words to you about how he is innocent. Hopefully you can see through this guys deception. I have not harassed anyone. I archived his blog post so I could warn people about his harassment. The reason I took interest in this is because he slanders skeptics like myself on his website every week. I was interested in his other targets and I thought I was doing the right thing in informing you about it. Take care. 64.120.56.10 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your transparency in posting to my talkpage. The entire thing is rather tiresome to me. Abd has sent me two e-mails telling me that he wants to take down his attacks of me. He has also said that we are friends, though I have no idea who you are.

Whatever allows for things to settle down is fine for me. It may be a good idea to get arbcomm involved. In fact, I think I'll ping Drmies to see if he has any thoughts on this matter.

jps (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY would be best. There is no reason to talk about off-wiki things that cannot be controlled here. Johnuniq (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much. I don't understand these people; I wish they took up fishing. They were outed themselves a few times, so I would think they'd know what a shitty thing that is: you don't mix up people's private lives with Wikipedia editing. What does it take, Ajraddatz and RadiX, to get a global ban for someone who has been indefinitely banned on en-Wikipedia and is obviously harassing a current editor, albeit in an off-wiki forum? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The last time nonsense like this came up, there was some serious talk about shutting down Wikiversity. I think they came within a hair's width of doing so. jps (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Of note: [4] jps (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A community global ban would require Abd to be indef blocked on two wikis or more, which isn't the case. If there is significant off-wiki harassment occurring, you could forward the case to the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team (email ca[at]wikimedia.org), and they might be able to take some action. If Abd is willing to take down the posts in question, then it might be best to pursue that route. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry for the late reply. Ajraddatz has just explained exactly what should be done in this case and how it should be done as well. :) RadiX∞ 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RadiX, Ajraddatz--I appreciate the explanation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ජපස. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)