User talk:ජපස

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


Why you have removed the word "polymath" from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar? Also the references? It was added by someone. What's the problem? প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[]

I had added philosopher and composer categories #Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar with proper references. And later JoelleJay identified them. Please don't remove them. Thanks.... প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Sometimes ridiculous! প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Redirecting Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe to Christopher Langan without consensus on talk page. The discussion is about the topic Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. - Scarpy (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Many many thanks[edit]

for your kind attention there # Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[]

But one thing I want to share with you. Sources of Banglapedia are applicable for Wikipedia (Bengali). I know this because I have seen many Bengali Wikipedians use it. I am working on the Works of Rabindranath Tagore both Bengali and English. So, it's not my suggestion, it's my request if possible, you may add one more category (philosopher). Thanks. প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[]

talk page reversion[edit]

Talk:Dean Radin is a talk page not an article: do not edit items by other users. If you have criticisms, add them below the edit.--Brian Josephson (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 14:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz[edit]

Can you verify if this person is a professor, and also I am not canvassing you, that would be hilarious. Valoem talk contrib 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Not a professor, but rather a research scientist. jps (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks, also please don't retire or leave the encyclopedia you and necessity here. Valoem talk contrib 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I wasn't planning on retiring! :) jps (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
You did leave for awhile, but you are vital in maintaining NPOV. Next time ping me if you are in trouble so it is not canvassing, I'll defend you are right in the habitability of planets, which requires far more than our current understanding. :) EDIT: It does not account for the importance of tectonic plates nor magnetism plus things we probably don't know. Valoem talk contrib 13:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Planet habitability is a much thornier IRL (and OR) issue than just dust-ups at Wikipedia. Journalists seem rather inclined to declare the existence of Earth 2.0 every few days, it seems. Fortunately, it seems Wikipedia is following rather than leading the discussion at this point (which it was not doing some years back). jps (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Exactly journalist always bullshit about things they don't understand or they try to sensationalize shit which is not true, but it does mean its not notable. It is just notable bullshit. When writing about this they always claim absurd statements of the supernatural. Along time ago when I was in high school I read about Clinton Road in New Jersey. We went there and disproved it all, unsurprisingly, but I am curious as to how these stories form. The problem is fringe is fringe and I think we should cover them in a way which is truthful because people are interested. The greatest fear is bullshit disguised as truth we shouldn't do that here, but we should cover notable bullshit I don't know if you agree on that. Valoem talk contrib 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Cover so-called 'fringe' truthfully? If only! Not on WP you won't find it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Truth has no correlation to notability, but must be presented in a neutral manner. Valoem talk contrib 14:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Yip! Neutrality is what you won't find here (at least the way the term is usually defined, but I gather WP has a funny definition, at least as far as what it defines as fringe is concerned). The trouble lies in a large part with its concept of fringe. But I should leave it there, as experience shows that nothing is to be be gained by discussing the issue.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]


Great of you to assume good faith... Did you see here where it says “The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)”? If that’s not enough then you need to say that rather than resorting to an unhelpful and unexplanative warning on my talk - otherwise you’re simply overstepping WP:BRD Aza24 (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]

"Accepted for publication" is on the submitter's word and is meaningless when it comes to what counts for documentation. Anyone can write that in a preprint server. Wow, if this is your defense, you are skirting on WP:CIR issues. jps (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
If I was confident that the "Accepted for publication" was authoritative enough then I would have simply reverted your edit, hence why I came here – even if you had read the “The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)” reverting without acknowledging it (to mean something or to not...) wastes everyone's time. Aza24 (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
It is reasonable for editing to be based upon facts. A relevant issue here is that of how often people claim of an arXiv preprint that it has been accepted for publication when in fact hasn't. Can our critic point to a case of that happening?--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
@Brian Josephson: I will be clearer. I apologize for reverting the removal of said article. I did not know that the statement “The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)” was able to be user generated, hence why I came here. I made a mistake and was met with bad faith that assumed I knew the article was unreliable when I did not. I was not familiar with that website... what else am I supposed to say?? I was simply frustrated that ජපස didn't just say "the publication claim can be user generated" in their reversion and instead said "User warned for inappropriate claims" which accomplishes nothing and made me come here in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I guess I need to be clearer also. My point is that it would indeed be unusual for an arXiv contributor to claim an article had been accepted if it hadn't (presumably that could be cause for being banned from uploading to the archive) and so it is not unreasonable to presume it will be published, and saying where it will be published is helpful to the reader. Furthermore, it probably will appear in the next couple of months and then there can be no disputing the assertion. So I would stick to your guns and revert the edit (which I've not seen in fact as I couldn't locate the page).--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
"presumably that could be cause for being banned from uploading to the archive" --> Nope. That's not how arxiv works. It is based purely on endorsement. I have found blatant plagiarism on arxiv and the admins will annotate it, but they will not remove it nor ban the uploader. The people who get banned from posting on arxiv are those who break some of the extremely generous rules and misrepresenting the publication status is not one of the rules. jps (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry to have to tell you that that's very naive view of arXiv, but no doubt that's what they'd like you to think. 'Purely on endorsement'? Would that were the case! But to get to the point, are you aware of any case of misrepresenting publication status yourself? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Yep. jps (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Reference please? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I'll let you dig it up yourself (it's actually pretty easy to find with judicious search engine terms). Happy hunting! jps (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
What a pity it is that you can't recall the details, even the name of the person involved!! What search terms would you suggest then? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Why do you think I can't recall the details? Be careful in your assumptions! Owing to the way the internet is these days, I would really rather not name the persons involved. I think you're smart enough to figure out what search terms would work best for your journey of discovery. jps (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Oh! But I'm sure you're smart enough that you can figure out how to let me have the information privately.--Brian Josephson (talk)
On the other hand, I've just figured out the reason you'll give for not doing that.--Brian Josephson (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Glad we're on the same page finally, I guess. jps (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]


for being so patient with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Genetic Interests. I guess I can be a bit credulous sometimes! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[]

You're welcome! Sometimes when I respond like that people think I'm being snarky. But I appreciate your ability to do the hard work in seeing what these sources are. Come by WP:FTN if you want to sharpen your (in)credulous chops. jps (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[]

I was just about to message you on something unrelated to Wikipedia[edit]

I am was considering working on a YouTube clip to debunk Bob Lazar bullshit non-scientific claims which appear to have never been questioned by an expert. If you watched the documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers it is rife with non-scientific analysis of "gravity drives" without any scientific methodology used. No mention of negative energy nor exotic matter required for such drives also the linking of Element 115 in Lazar's article to Moscovium appears to be in error. Whatever "element" he is describing is not Moscovium. He was talking about some unknown element discovered in September 2013 in Sweden [1], which I can find no creditable sources for not Moscovium which was discover in 2003 in Russia. Would you be interested in looking into this? Valoem talk contrib 02:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]

As far as I can tell, Lazar is a conman who makes things up out of whole cloth either for fame or fortune. Unfortunately, he is also the only source for a number of important supplies. It is pretty hard to take any claim he makes seriously... he notoriously does not provide scrutable evidence for most of what he asserts that seems extraordinary. jps (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I think to include Moscovium as the so called "Element 115" is incorrect information, but I am not sure. It is element 115, but not the pixie dust Lazar is talking about, there appears to be an unfortunate amount of support for Lazar as credible on the internet. Valoem talk contrib 02:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Lazar made up his claims about Element 115 before the element was discovered. Somehow, it doesn't seem to bother those who lap up his lies that he was totally wrong about what properties that element has. The simplest explanation is that he never had anything in the first place.jps (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]
What is strange is that there is undisputed evidence he worked at S-4 documented by George Knapp (television journalist) who is considered a reliable source. Also he did apparently build a rocket engine car in his garage. My guess is he was not working as a scientist at S-4. What is more amazing is because there is some truth to his claims, he has fooled the world. I wanted to make a science based analysis of his claims. Valoem talk contrib 02:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Well, to be clear, there is not even "undisputed" evidence that "S-4" exists, but even granting that Lazar worked for some laboratory near Groom Lake, I don't think that's strange at all! Lots of people are needed to work at such installations. I don't see any evidence that he worked as a scientist beyond perhaps something like a technician (which is a role sometimes called a "lab monkey"). Building a rocket car is impressive, but it's also exactly the kind of project that an amateur enthusiast could take on given the right materials. Mythbusters built one, if I'm not mistaken. These are things totally unrelated to his claims of aliens and spooky things of that sort.

The way to evaluate such claims is to go through the checklist of Sagan's baloney detector kit: [2]. Trying to do a "science-based" analysis of claims that may actually be complete fabrications is basically a waste of time. In order to evaluate a claim on the basis of its scientific merits, you have to have a reason to believe the person who is making the claim in the first place. Scrutiny needs to be applied to how the claim is made and what is presented as "evidence". You will find, in the case of Lazar, that what is presented as evidence is paper thin or non-existent.

Someone who runs a scientific supply company, worked adjacent to scientific investigations, and builds rockets will appear to the majority of people to be scientifically credible. But the secret is that cranks need to have a level of credibility in order to be taken seriously enough to become famous enough to have Wikipedia pages. This is why Lazar has "fooled" people and someone like Lord Steven Christ has not.

jps (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Living things in culture / Human uses of living things[edit]

Um this article was renamed as you can see both on talk page and in history. The GA review was under the old name. I'd be grateful if you'd put back the GA details. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[]

If it was renamed, it was done incorrectly. I think you need to figure out how to fix it properly. I'm not going to put the details back until I see the review. jps (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Another editor has rectified the situation, saving you the effort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Expert needed[edit]

Advice was given at a recent AfD that Varginha UFO incident should be tagged with an "expert needed" template. I believe the suggestion was that an expert in Brazilian culture was required to evaluate it. However, since the article is focused on claims of extraterrestrial beings, ufos, etc., your professional experience as an astronomer and science educator would also seem a good fit. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Mass hysteria strikes again. jps (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[]

“A better way to put it”[edit]

...wrote extensively on science topics though he was not a scientist.


I’ve had a look at the NYT columns that have been put forward to support his significance, I’ll comment on the talk page shortly. Brunton (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Well, yes, but it is a case of WP:ITA then, I think. jps (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]

LOL are you for real? No, I don't believe race or ethnicity are connected to abilities[edit]

I know it might not sounds polite, but your "notification" is nonsense.

This is BULLSH**... I literally said numerous how the theory in question is a pseudo-science and how it's false, so again, BULL**it. I literally stated it on every talk page, and [3].

There is no intersection between race, ethnicity, and human abilities and behaviour.

All I did was to to point out in the article about Jewish Nobel ptize winners that most of them are Ashkenazi. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

You either did not read the notification carefully, or you did not understand it. Either way, I encourage you to read it again. jps (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I did, stating most of the Jews who won the Nobel prize are Ashkenazi is not promoting a theory of connection between race and intelligence. It's just a statistical fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I have not accused you of promoting a theory of a connection between race and intelligence and the notification is explicitly not an accusation either. Indeed, that's the very first statement in the notification. jps (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

November 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Criticism of Hinduism, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden (2nd nomination)[edit]

I think this was self-evidently a WP:BADNAC. One situation when a non-admin closure is inappropriate is when the outcome is likely to be controversial. This is such a case, as evidenced by the fact that this is the second nomination for deletion for this page in just over a week. A further indication of the controversial nature of this is the non-keep closures of two related AfDs only a few hours after your closure: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden as delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden as redirect. Not helping matters is the fact that you closed this early, after less than 48 hours had passed. I suggest you self-revert and let the discussion run its course. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Feel free to take it to WP:DRV where the complaints about the initial AfD should have been taken in the first place. jps (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Very well, I did. I don't disagree that the initial AfD should have been taken to WP:DELREV instead of there being a second AfD (I stated as much in my comment on the second AfD), but as someone who cited WP:POINT in their closure, you really should consider whether closing this AfD was the least disruptive course of action, considering the likely outcome of bringing the first AfD closure to WP:DELREV would have been relisting it in order to allow proper discussion and the second AfD served that purpose just fine. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I think having that discussion open was disruptive. Closing it was less disruptive. I could be wrong, but let's find out what the good people at WP:DRV think. jps (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]

When God Writes Your Love Story Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated When God Writes Your Love Story 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Recent non-standard cosmology theories[edit]

Hi, do you know if they still publish lots of non-standard cosmology theories in respected peer reviewed science journals? I don't think they do. I have added a source to the Non-standard cosmology lead which explains this. I am not saying none appear at all but the source says they appear much less frequently. Would you say this is accurate? Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Jaggi Vasudev[edit]

I have rolled back your edit of this article, as the public speaking events given add notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[]

There references to the speaking events. These do not consitute puffery. I don't like this guru, nonetheless, he needs to be treated with WP:NPOV --Whiteguru (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Incivil to the worst[edit]

Your edit summary which attempts to demean people with lower competence is duly noted. Please give a more collaborative advice instead of a divisive one. GeraldWL 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Which edit summary would that be? jps (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]
"Seriously, who wrote these?" [sarcastically] "Write better, please." GeraldWL 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Did you write that prose? If so, I exhort you to write better. This wasn't sarcastic at all. I am serious that this is a problem. jps (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]
ජපස, I'm saying "sarcastic" because it is. It doesn't feel like you're actually advising me, but rather a mockery. Not everyone's up to your standards. GeraldWL 06:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

There is no mockery intended -- only dismay. Fortunately, Wikipedia is a site where anyone can fix problems and so we will continue to fix problems. When it becomes problematic to the point of disruption, then you'll receive warnings that you can take as advice. Right now, it's just a bit more time for other volunteers to clean-up messes. My dismay is because this particular article is pretty forward-facing and has the potential to do some real harm if it isn't treated properly considering the subject matter. jps (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery[edit]


As a general suggestion, please don't use article talk pages to suggest editors are ideologs. I understand the feeling, as I can think of editors whom I feel are motivated by things other than producing a good, impartial article. However, going around saying that is both uncivil and even worse, could be wrong. It's quite possible where I see questionable motive they are actually acting in good faith. Anyway, such arguments doesn't make your argument logically or stronger better aligned with policy but it does make it harder to have a civil discussion. Springee (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[]

When the outcome is to promote one ideology over another, then that's the WP:SPADE that I see. jps (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ToddyShake (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't really have the time to investigate more but if it can help so you can, they have also edited some other apparent promotional pages including the very recently created The Okunoren Twins (by another user), so a UPE farm is possible... —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Another ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

The user who filed the report failed to read the large bolded section telling them to advise you of them, so this is just a courtesy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page[edit]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Unacceptable Behaviour.[edit]

Do not accuse me of 'ignorantly attributing these well-worn racialist theories to "black supremacists"', when I have specifically done exactly the opposite. Further, do not in future accuse me of advocating for a white supremacist position. Those who advocate for a white supremacist position are by definition white supremacists, and I consider this a very serious personal attack. If you find it difficult to rein in your passions on this particular issue and contribute to the discussion without tossing around vile accusations, I suggest you sit this one out.2407:7000:9BC3:C800:68D2:3A82:595B:DBDA (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Who are you? WP:ANI is thataway. Begone, troll! jps (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]


I agree with your last comment, at the noticeboard (and was agreeing with yours, when I last posted). As an example, Don Bluth would be an amazingly RS on the subject of animation and filmmaking, but on the subject of Disney, probably best not to put too much stock in his words. I felt the need to say this because I think you might find that example useful, and you're free to steal it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks! It dawns on me that this might be a good supplement to the WP:NPOV/FAQ. jps (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Game Changers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Apologies for the Double Post, and thanks for removing it[edit]

I apparently dealt with that edit conflict quite poorly. That's what I get for trying to dash things off quickly while at work. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Not a problem! jps (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

WP:civil - Civility on the Pentagon UFO Video Talk page[edit]

Hi - could you please strikethrough, or modify your comments made to me so that they are more polite, on the UFO Pentagon videos talk page? Just the ones that are being discussed, and the ones that I have commented on. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

I think all comments are being discussed and you have commented on most of my comments. Can you be more specific with diffs and an explanation of what you find impolite? jps (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I would appreciate it if you strikethrough these comments you made. I believe they violate W:civil, on the grounds they are directed at me personally, rather than at the content of my arguments. Thanks
(1) The problem is that I question your ability to even understand the argument. I'm not convinced you know what parallax even is. You certainly don't seem to be able to spell it correctly. jps (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(2) Truth hurts, but WP:SPADEs are spades. This discussion has solidified for me that we will have to deal with your incompetence if we're going to make any progress here. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(3) What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether you even understand what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and you seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(4) The only word that seems to be messed up here is the one that is most relevant to our discussion. It seems pretty noticeable. In any case, this is not personal. This is a matter of questioning whether the person who posed this RfC actually understands the idea they seem intent on criticizing. jps (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Diff[]
I am happy to refactor comments that users find uncivil under the conditions I'll explain here, but I want to be clear here that I firmly believe that WP:CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder (I used to have a splash notification at this page explaining that -- but the procedure got used so infrequently, I've removed it). My personal policy has always been to engage with people who find my comments to be uncivil and to ask them to explain why they find the words uncivil. A simple explanation of what you find uncivil about each of these four statements is all I need because I would like to keep the meaningful content for future records. Some users have offered their own rewordings that would make them feel better about the civility, but as long as your explanations for what you find uncivil are clear to me, I'll be happy to refactor. jps (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I believe they violate Wp:civil, on the grounds that each one of them is directed at me personally, rather than at the content of my arguments, I don't really want to have a big discussion about it, as its already been discussed at length at the actual page. Please strike them through. Thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
If addressing you personally is the issue, let me try to refactor these comments to see if you would find the rewording to be less uncivil:
(1) The problem is that I question the understanding of the argument. I'm not convinced that it is understood what parallax even is. The spelling of the word is incorrect frequently in these discussions. jps (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(2) Truth hurts, but WP:SPADEs are spades. This discussion has solidified for me that we will have to deal with an apparent level of incompetence if we're going to make any progress here. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(3) What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether there is any understanding what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and we seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Diff
(4) The only word that seems to be messed up here is the one that is most relevant to our discussion. It seems pretty noticeable. In any case, this is not personal. This is a matter of questioning whether people actually understand the idea of a parallax error. jps (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Would this satisfy? I understand that you don't want to have a big discussion about it, but I find it much more useful for me to be able to hone my commenting skills if I offer a rewording as I don't share the same idea about this concept as you and I would like to be able to achieve the same rhetorical effect if possible. jps (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I appreciate you trying, some of that is better, and some isn't. I don't really want to get in a prolonged discussion about this, as its been discussed enough. Please strike them through. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

I am happy to replace with this wording, but I'm not a fan of strikethrough culture since I take the wiki-philosophy to heart. I'll replace the wording now, though. jps (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]


Hello ජපස:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[]


Please update your signature to include a working link, per WP:SIGLINK. It's kind of a pain to have to go to the AfD history to track down the actual user. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) But it does include a working link?? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nevermind, I see where the problem was: this edit apparently trashed your sig. My apologies. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The correct use of the English language[edit]

If you disagree with another editor about the phrasing of a particular sentence in an article — as a matter of English — and wish to resolve it, the right way to do so is by the common consensus of all editors; and not by private argumentation between two editors. (One man's elegant trope is another man's linguistid solecism.) Be that as it may, such argumentation is generally counter-productive.

Accordingly, if you have any remarks of that sort, please put them on the talk page that pertains to the article in question; not on my personal talk page, where they are contextually meaningless. That way, everyone can read what you have to say, and evaluate your contribution in context.Ttocserp 18:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This was two separate articles. When I see a pattern that crosses more than one article but involves one user, the choice is clear where to talk, in my opinion. If you disagree with my assessment, you can explain why, but there is a chance that you might agree with it. I cannot know for certain until I hear from you and there is no sense in starting two conversations when I am pretty sure one will do. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) You are mistaken, Ttocserp. If every nuance of style had to be discussed on article talkpages, we would never get anything done. It's highly unlikely that any other users would show up at, for example, Talk:Francisco Solano López, which was last edited in 2019, to discuss the kind of minutiae that you're concerned with. ජපස's note on your talkpage was polite and correct. You'd much better respond to him than make unrealistic demands for article talk discussion. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC).[]
@Ttocserp: I note in your last revert at Francisco Solano López that you make a good point. I did a search of Google Scholar as you requested and "treat for peace" does definitely appear, but far less frequently than "sue for peace". I can understand, however, the connotation is such that "sue for peace" is often considered an inferior position, but it certainly doesn't always mean that. Anyway, it would be interesting if there was some source that disambiguated the terms, but I have yet to find one. As far as I can tell, the two are used almost interchangeably with "sue for peace" being consistently more popular: [4]. jps (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frithjof Schuon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Allow me to continue here our discussion about Nars’s article. Copy of our last discussion: Original text: "his "perennialist" or universalist perspective takes into account the essence of all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". Your text: "his 'perennialist' perspective is based on the acceptance of 'universalism'".The original text gives the reader clearer informations than the second one; the article "universalism" that you propose is too broad when a few words are enough. Thank you for your understanding. The original wording assumes that there is an "essence of all religions". Certainly Nasr and others believe that, but it is by no mean a fact. Therefore we would need to say something much more awkward if you want to keep an expanded vision of this text. Something like "his "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account what Nasr believes to be the essence of all religions, beyond what Nasr considers their formal particularities or their current state." That's a pretty difficult sentence to parse, in my opinion, but that would, minimally, be what we would need to have in order to comply with WP:ASF. Linking to universalism, I would argue, is fairly important for a reader who needs to see how those ideas are typically engaged -- even if that article needs improvement. - jps 12:00, 12 October 2021

My reply: thank you for your comments. Is the following suggestion neutral? "his universalist perspective, which is that of perennial philosophy, takes into account the common essence to all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". In my opinion, the link to perennial philosophy allows the reader to understand that “takes into account... state” is not Nasr’s opinion but an aspect of perennial philosophy, to which Nasr adheres. If you accept my suggestion, I shall ask someone to check my English, as it is not my mother tongue. ----Hamza Alaoui (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It's better, but it still tacitly assumes that "the common essence to all religions" is something that is a fact rather than an opinion. You could write: his universalist perspective, which is that of perennial philosophy, takes into account what he assumes is a common essence to all religions beyond their formal particularities or their current state jps (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Request for critical review[edit]

I have created an article on coloniality of knowledge today. It's a start class article in my opinion and there is much to do here. I sincerely request you to have a look at it, if you have time, and make critical assessments (or even changes, if you think necessary) to this article. I am requesting you for this because I am not satisfied with certain wordings in the article (such as oppressions, suppressions, annihilation etc), which might attract WP:POV (I am not sure though). I couldn't do better as a non-native. I am trying to learn these things from you and others. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Your writing is fairly good, I would say. There are a few turns of phrase which read a bit out of place, but it doesn't impede understanding. One thing I think may deserve considering is whether coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of power can be merged into coloniality, for example. It seems like there are a lot of articles which are discussing largely the same subject and could use a dose of WP:SUMMARY organization. jps (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have no objections if other editors believe that merging the two would be better. Thank you for response. Mosesheron (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Update: I just wanted to note that I've expanded the article a little more since my last comment, and I no longer believe that merging the two would be better, given the prominence of the subjects and the coverage in RSs. That is, of course, my own opinion; editors are allowed to make their own decisions on the matter. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]