User talk:ජපස

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

edit war[edit]

We are now both at three reverts, if you remove any more material that will push you over 4.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am now at three. So are you. See you tomorrow. Try to read up on WP:RS in the meantime. jps (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see the result of the complaint. If there are more personal attacks it is likely that some admin will take action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also please note that List of reported UFO sightings is now subject to a one revert restriction. – bradv🍁 04:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force sighting[edit]

The way you edited this article was good in some ways but now you are deleting also real facts. It is definitely good to have there only real facts and make article as short and clear as possible. Some of those things I wrote in the article were only stated in those not so trustworthy sources like in those pseudoscientific UFO–books or UFO–documentaries. So it is good that the article does not have those claims. But you are deleting verifiable content as well by trustworthy source like Yle. You are saying that objects leaving with a high speed is not verifiable and that it is just an opinion. Finland's national public broadcasting company said that fighter pilot Tarmo Tukeva was flying 700 km/h towards the objects but he was left behind like he was not moving at all. Also this source says that those objects were reported on Vaasa in the same minute that they left the airport in Pori. So the high speed of the objects is very verifiable information and it is not just an opinion. There is no more reliable source than Yle to get real information about this incident. When you stated that I was not having a neutral point of view, that was true. Also it is true that you are not having yourself a neutral point of view. When I think that extraterrestrials are real and life has evolved also in many other planets, you think that they are not real and belong to same fiction–category with ghosts and Santa Claus. I am now trying to write this article to be as neutral as possible and having only verifiable content by sources like Yle. But you are now deleting verifiable content. Zulrah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Finish national public broadcasting company is not a reliable source for measuring the speed of objects approached by fighter jets. The problem with articles about UFOs is that there generally are not reliable sources for many of the claims being made. There is no real way to determine what was observed beyond the testimony of the various pilots and ground control reports. Because of that, the best we can do is attribute observations and direct claims. In-text assertions about speeds are not something that we can accommodate in Wikipedia if there isn't very good sourcing. Reports from Yle, crucially, are not enough. jps (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Reports by pilots and ground control are very good if you want to know what happened. Not only Yle, also Ruotuväki that is a magazine published by Finnish Defence Forces, stated those 7 objects were reported on Vaasa in the same minute they left the airport in Pori. In that airport in Pori both the ground control and pilots stated that those objects left with an incredible speed. To travel to Vaasa from Pori in 1 minute would need a speed over 10000 km/h. That is pretty fast. I will add facts about this incident to the article and you can remove them, but I will also remove what you do, because I just do not agree with you. We need now a third party to solve this problem. Zulrah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) "www.fufora" is a UFO enthusiast web page, it's not considered a WP:RS by Wikipedia. You might also check out WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Claims about high speed and objects being seen on Vaasa in the same minute they left the airport in Pori, are also stated by Yle (Finland's national public broadcasting company) and by Ruotuväki (a magazine published by Finnish Defence Forces). These two are reliable sources. Zulrah (talk)

Thanks. The citation goes to Ilta Sanomat, a Finnish tabloid. Given tabloids penchant for the WP:SENSATIONAL, I don’t know if that’s a RS of fact fir what the FDF says. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal patience user award[edit]

Siberian tiger hanging at bar.jpg Personal tiger award

I hereby award you a tiger! For patient, controlled strength: I've been lurking old 2005 archives and noticed exemplary patience and temper including when facing attacks at an old creationist article, when step by step asking for sources and verifying them. This is also an encouragement to keep that cool.Face-smile.svgPaleoNeonate – 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: adapted from the tiger award at WP:PUA, using {{Useraward}}. —PaleoNeonate – 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Well deserved. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
Ha! I imagine there are a lot of people who would object to the characterization of myself as one who "keeps cool". ;) jps (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Good balance user award[edit]

Blondin Crossing the Niagara.jpg The Blondin award for good balance
On second thoughts, I'll award you a tightrope walker. You have received the exclusive Blondin Award for your sure-footed balance. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That seems about right. "During an event in Dublin in 1861, the rope on which he was walking broke and two workers were killed, although Blondin was not injured." I'M STILL ALIVE. jps (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unsure if it's voluntary, but this is a magic award, where the signature and time changes to always show the latest edit (see {{REVISIONUSER}} etc in its source).Face-smile.svgPaleoNeonate – 04:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • OMG. No, it's not deliberate. @PaleoNeonate and RexxS: could one of you fix my Blondin award so it doesn't do that, above and on its own page? It's at User:Bishonen/The Blondin award. (I changed a few things for jps, including the image.) Bishonen | talk 12:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
      I think that if the template was used with subst it would work and substitute those variables. If you manually copy-pasted its source, they would persist as-is. —PaleoNeonate – 14:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      Indeed. The documentation on User:Bishonen/The Blondin award says "must be substituted", and as long as the person giving the award does the substitution – {{subst:User:Bishonen/The Blondin award}} – there won't be any problems. There must be an easier way for Jimbo to get out of the USA into Canada, though, surely? --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

DS alert per request I give you one at Talk:Race and intelligence[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! jps (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

okay.....[edit]

Am trying to buff the constellation Sagitta...which contains the Black Widow Pulsar (an article that you started). was hoping to write some nice introductory note for neophytes to read on the constellation article before digesting a bigger chunk of material at the daughter article itself....can you write a la Dr Seuss with words of one syllable? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope this is Seussian enough for you: [1]. The multi-syllabic words are wikilinked. jps (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that deletion thing still going on?[edit]

Win or lose, I don't really care. But...I tried to find it and I coulnd't. Eventually found it. Weird. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:MfDs take a while. They aren't monitored as closely as WP:AfDs.
Gotcha. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ROWN[edit]

Please read this. You have entered an edit war on the Bob Lazar page and escalated it by reverting the work of several people without participating in an ongoing discussion (see talk page). Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find this complaint quite baffling. Gtoffoletto, are you seriously accusing a user who has edited the article once of edit warring and escalation? And of not participating in the discussion on talk, which is simply false? Also, are you aware that WP:ROWN is merely an essay? Bishonen | talk 14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
I'm not "accusing" anyone. I'm just saying the one edit was a revert of something like 50 edits when a discussion was clearly taking place, which seems too aggressive to me. Especially when the page edit history appears so contentious. Talking and de-escalating seems more advisable to me and I agree with the MO presented in the essay linked --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI I have reported our edit war[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident_edit_war what a waste of time for all of us to have come to this point --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to join me on the talkpage whenever you would like. jps (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Glad you are willing to finally talk. But I would still like someone to review our exchanges if possible as I believe that you behaviour is highly destructive to the civility of this project. You shouldn't start talking only once reported. And I see you are flooding the page with edits now. Not sure what that is supposed to achieve.
ERRATA: as per indication I reported you to the edit war noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It's your call, however, I am not sure why you think this is an edit war. A lot of what you are complaining about is really just regular editing. In any case, I will once again invite you to discuss on the talkpage, and perhaps take a glance at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If and when you decide to join in conversation on the talkpage, I'll be happy to engage! jps (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, you actually did post to WP:ANI, Gtoffoletto, and not so far to the edit warring noticeboard. I can tell you for free, though, that it would be useless to post this conflict there; jps has made two reverts, this and this. He has made many more edits, yes, but for purposes of counting reverts, consecutive edits count as one. See WP:EW. Two reverts is definitely not what El C had in mind when he advised you on ANI to list on AN3 "in case of chronic edit warring". And you have also taken the conflict to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I would stick to that for now if I were you. Forum shopping is frowned on. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC).
Or you could start a nice conversation with me at the talkpage? I want to thank you for being part of the impetus to get me to look at some of these articles that were in desperate need of a cleanup. In my judgment, they are much improved. It seems you disagree, but unless you want to explain yourself in discussion, it's hard to know what to do with that information. jps (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Your welcome. The page sucked so bad that anything would have improved it. Glad your stifling of MY impetus gave you such a charge. We could have done it together in a WP:CIVIL manner. But if this is what energises you then fine. I'm informing you that I will report your WP:HOUNDING tomorrow in the appropriate admin board (it's the third time I'm asked to move my report to another place... but oh well... at least those pages don't get reverted :-) still feels more productive than the last week). Good night --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how a hounding case would make sense when everyone at the noticeboard noticed your messages and edits, and there's no clear consensus at the noticeboard for your changes, which even takes precedence over the article talk page while the discussion is in progress... I noticed your comment at an admin's page about being sick, please remember that nothing's urgent on Wikipedia except reverting obvious vandalism or WP:BLP violations. Take your time, —PaleoNeonate – 03:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talkcontribs) 15:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it, WP:ANI#Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස[edit]

Doug Weller talk 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Not sure what to do about that. UFO apologists don't like it when I edit Wikipedia. I don't really have time to go into all the dissembling, forumshopping, and problematic aspects of the user. I would suggest WP:BOOMERANG, but I'll let someone else make the call. The "evidence" cited does not strike me as being particularly well presented. Oh well! jps (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD?[edit]

Hey, It's really hard to collaborate with you on Wikipedia. Often your approach comes off as non collaborative and hasty in reverting. I'm monitoring the pages I know you follow closely as you often revert them but it's a really ineffective way of working together and if I didn't follow closely many legitimate edits would be lost.

May I ask you: why don't you follow a less aggressive and highly recommended approach such as WP:BRD or WP:EDITCONSENSUS? I know your contributions are WP:GOODFAITH but your approach to reverting can be perceived as combative and hostile. We have eventually reached a compromise/consensus in several occasions but our path has been (in my opinion) unnecessarily tough. We could have achieved the same results with half the edits and 1/4 of the discussion. As I've pointed out in the past I'm a believer in WP:ROWN but you seem to have the opposite philosophy.

Don't take this as an attack. I would like to understand better your editing philosophy and to understand if you think I should change anything in mine so we can work together more productively and in a more relaxed way. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. You inserted into a quote a line that is not in the article. You should revert. jps (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to start a WP:CIVIL discussion. Pointing out WP:COMPETENCE is the umpteenth personal attack. Please stop?
You must have missed the edit summary. The quote is taken verbatim from the article. Not sure what is not clear about it. I state it here too for clarity: the quote is taken verbatim from the article.
Let's keep discussions about specific articles in the relative talk page. Here I would like to engage in a WP:CIVIL discussion to understand how we can work together better. This is not about a specific edit but a pattern that is emerging every time we cross paths across multiple pages (and I see a couple of previous discussions in your talk page which report similar occurrences with other users). I think we can both do better and help each other out. In general I'm a very patient person. Last time we interacted I was very ill and was not as lucid as I would have liked. I regret that. But now I'm fine and in quarantine so we have all the time in the world to both improve :-) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You just removed the fact that verification failed: [2]. THE QUOTE AS PRESENTED IN WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOUND IN THE ARTICLE. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. WP:COMPETENCE is clearly the defining issue here. You don't seem to understand that you are inserting into a quote a line that is not in the quote. I don't know how to make this any more clear and your actions fighting this make me think you need to step back a bit and stop editing again. jps (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That was an atrocious thing to do Gtoffoletto, its no wonder JPS isn't pleased with you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
What are you on about? The source article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html clearly contains the EXACT VERBATIM quote "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching" as anyone with the "Competence" to use search on the page can verify. Just as the quote before. What am I missing here? User:Roxy the dog have you verified the quote yourself? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the second personal attack and uncivil behaviour in one very short exchange. I'm asking you again to stop and to communicate in a CIVIL manner. This will be my last request before asking for admin intervention. If there has been a misunderstanding we can resolve it in a civil manner. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand that when something is in quotation marks it has to be an exact quote? NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE is the phrase "and according to the New York times". If this is not something you understand, you need to stop editing Wikipedia, perhaps in general. jps (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The source article IS the New York Times. Whatever they write IS "according to the New York Times". The text states: The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."[1] The full sentence from the source says "Some of the incidents were videotaped, including one taken by a plane’s camera in early 2015 that shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching." Please, once again, moderate your tones and communicate more calmly. This is the third time you accuse me of incompetence and being unable to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Your tone is out of line. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
P.s. unfortunately this is a pretty good example of the issue I was trying to highlight with my initial message. Do you consider this a WP:CIVIL manner of collaborating on Wikipedia? Aggressively accusing other editors of being incompetent while reverting their edits? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to make it any more clear. You simply incorporated a phrase into a direct quote that was not in the direct quote. The phrase was "and according to the New York times". Is this a language comprehension issue? jps (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It might be. I'll try to clear things up:
  • You are aware that the text within quotes "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching." is contained within the NYT article as a description of the video?
  • You are aware that the source reported is the New York Times?
  • You are aware the phrase "according to the New York times" before the quote is NOT within quotes. It is just me reporting who said the quote that follows?
  • If you are aware of the above please state your issue with the sentence precisely. I am not understanding what the problem is. The sentence before this one treats another NYT quote in the same exact way and you don't seem to have e problem with it. What's the difference? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You are aware the phrase "according to the New York times" before the quote is NOT within quotes. It is just me reporting who said the quote that follows? That's wrong. It is in quotes. Check again. jps (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I can confirm it is NOT in quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Theodore_Roosevelt_UFO_incidents&oldid=946957558 --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Quotes highlighted:
The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."[1]
I hope this clears things up. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't. You still don't understand. This is infuriating. jps (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You agree the definition of "in quotes" is https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20quotes ": preceded and followed by quotation marks."?
You agree there are no quotes before and after "The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times".?
If A and B are true: it is not "in quotes". Right? Can you explain the problem in a more explicit way? I really can't understand your reasoning here. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm done with this. I've tried to explain it over and over again, but you simply don't understand. jps (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You are not explaining what your problem is. The quote included within quotes is taken verbatim from the article. I don't see how you can dispute that. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK. The article has moved past this issue in any case. Start from where we are now. See you at the talkpage. jps (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

R&I[edit]

I made a post at Ianvector's talk page since they closed the RFC, and tried to ping you there as you were the filer, but am unsure if the ping worked or if you have notifications enabled (I placed an ad-hoc link to your user page and my message was multiline). I'll wait a few days for their answer, but may also post a variant at AN later if necessary, either at their recommendation or in case of no reply. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about that mess. It seems clear to me that an IP-evading sock is doing his level best to disrupt the discussions, but the admins seemed hoodwinked by WP:Civil POV pushing in ways that are remarkable. I had hope that regentspark would act, but it seems like the problem is that there is just too much admin fatigue and too much worry about tipping the balance among the corps. I don't exactly blame them, but I kinda wish they would have gotten the courage to file the arbcom clarification themselves. jps (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't do anything in relation to the above since, except posting a proposal here just now, unsure if it'll result in anything though, —PaleoNeonate – 11:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Even IP addresses have fealings[edit]

I stay out of the race and intelligence articles. It's a subject on which I have little outside knowledge and it also seems to really get emotions up. IP or not, this comment [[3]] is way over the WP:NPA line. I would strongly suggest striking/blanking the accusations that are directed at the editor. Springee (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to get people's attention about this IP editor for a long time and I cannot seem to get through to the admins. I have sent e-mails, I have asked how to file SPIs, I have posted at WP:AE. I cannot figure out what to do about it. I am running out of options. If you have any ideas on what I can do, let me know, but I have very good evidence that this is a sockpuppet account with an agenda. jps (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I totally understand the frustration in cases like you are talking about. I've had to deal with socks of HughD for a while. Occasionally they will show up as an IP in some random article I've been involved with. Per EVADE I will revert their edits including to talk pages. However some editors are not OK with that and then I've had to go through the trouble of proving the obvious sock is a sock. Still, calling editor's "racist" is a violation of NPA. I don't say such things about HughD socks because NPA applies even to blocked editors. Please take the highroad and remove the personal attacks. Springee (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that "racist" is a personal attack in this instance. I think that it instead speaks to the specific outcomes of the advocacy of the editor. I understand that some people take such descriptions as personally offensive, but this is not meant to be a personal insult. Rather it is meant to be a description of the effects. I think it is very important that Wikipedia maintain a strictly anti-racist outlook per WP:NPOV, and I think this is a rather more important reason why we should not be entertaining the musings of this particular sockpuppet in spite of the fact that the policies and guidelines are far more skewed towards enforcement of WP:SOCK instead of WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to be more careful in your use of language. "racist sock puppets like you" does not speak to the effects- it speaks to the editor. You are not exempt from the policies that everyone needs to follow. If you need help filing SPI reports, ask for it, I'll be happy to help. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm on the side of Wikiculture that favors WP:SPADE. No one knows better than I that there is no exemption from policy adherence at this website. However, as policy is a matter of standard practice, I think we can express a difference of opinion and still be okay here. jps (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Whatever side of WP:SPADE (which is a personal essay) you are on, you may not violate wikipedia policies by calling other editors "racist", even if you are 100% convinced that they are racist. I'm just giving you some advice above. Others might not be so accommodating. (N.B. - it also looks like it has been a while since you read WP:SPADE, which says "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks.") JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You missed my point. Civility is in the eye of the beholder. I disagree that I was being personal. jps (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I doubt you'll find many people who'd agree that calling someone "racist" is civil, or impersonal. But feel free to take your chances. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Race and Intellegence[edit]

As a note, I am working as an uninvolved administrator at Race and Intelligence. I decided to collapse the discussion as a means of attempting to keep the discussion on track and civil. I am certainly open to feedback on how you see that going but will also state that parts of your recent contributions to the discussion have been more disruptive than help. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the IPs are more disruptive than helpful, but it seems admins are okay with that. Ho hum. jps (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barkeep49 jps (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like you found my RfA. As for IPs so far it hasn't felt to me that they're more disruptive than registered users though I do think it would be nice if they were to register and participate that way. But since our policies allow for IP editing I have yet to see enough disruption to justify semi-protect. I will, as I did yesterday, call IP editors on when I see (or am alerted to) an issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The IPs are posting this way to WP:AVOID scrutiny as they are coordinating off-wiki in response to what they perceive to be a coordinated attack on their pro-eugenics community. The IP in-question admitted this: here. This is not what is supposed to happen at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, I admit I didn't read their wall of text at ARCA. I do so that El C has partially blocked that IP from R+I and bradv has rightfully called into question a bunch of what they wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit to Judith Curry[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate your attempt to be more even-handed in how we describe her critique (and the responses). However much she may have gone over to the Dark Side in recent years, I think she remains one of the most interesting of the contrarians, and does raise genuine issues which other scientists think are at least worth investigating further. Merlinme (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I rather think that she's one of the most problematic of the contrarians. I prefer me some Richard Lindzen who, at least, is honest about being a denier. I rather get the impression that there were aspects of the field that she didn't full understand (attribution of uncertainty) and leaned too heavily into that lack of understanding. YMMV. What I do think is important is to be honest about where she lies in all this which the article is getting closer to achieving. jps (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ufology[edit]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 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 () 18:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users'/project talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That's a bit rich. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Plandemic[edit]

Hello, ජපස

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Plandemic, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plandemic.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry page curation tool decided this was the correct message.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I usually WP:TWINKLE for this purpose, but it only pings the article creator. jps (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war[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 Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. Sigh. Maybe we can try working on these things a bit more after the dust settles. jps (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: I was thinking of posting this at ANI, but instead I will do so here. I am a bit concerned by your both sidesism in that report. I understand the preference by some at Wikipedia is to say that anything that even has a whiff of WP:EDITWAR is an indication of no-good-very-bad editors, but there is an obvious preference at Wikipedia to prefer WP:MAINSTREAM over WP:FRINGE. The demarcation between those promoting one over the other was pretty clear in the history, and it is a bit strange that you did not recognize that. I will grant that the user who was ultimately topic banned was better than a lot of other POV-pushers we have had at UFO-related pages, but it is unmistakeable that he still preferenced the "UFOS ARE AMAZING MYSTERIES" POV in a way that was fairly problematic. jps (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You are free to think of me what you will, just as I am free to think of you what I will. It is naive to imagine that platitudes will change the leopard's spots. Please do not ping me again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Obviously hit a nerve there. There is a classic sort of Wikipedian who thinks WP:NPOV is WP:GEVAL. I think we found another one! jps (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My position[edit]

My position on the whole thing is that a. I'm pretty ambivalent about the coronavirus ref as it appears to somewhat twist Piers words in a way that was not obvious in the interview context. b. I think the Huffpost ref on his views on 9/11 is pretty damning, suggesting that state actors might be involved is pretty fringe. c. I think his views on the Skripal poisonings are also fringe. d. As I haven't been following the syrian civil war, I'm pretty unfamiliar with the syrian chemical warfare denialism stuff and the alledged OPCW coverup, my gut feeling is that it is disinformation and fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was more interested in what you thought about the particular sources, etc... but I think I can glean that from this too. jps (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge draft[edit]

Pretty strong consensus here to merge two articles, and JoJo Anthrax has kindly taken a stab at a draft. I rather like its pithy brevity, but as someone having extensive experience with WP:FRINGE topics, your input would be appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! jps (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comment about Peter Gulutzan on the Matt Ridley talk page[edit]

I believe that an objective observer would regard this edit as a personal attack. I've enjoyed a long respite since the last one precisely 5 years ago and request that you avoid repetition in the near future. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am tired of your activities hiding in plain sight in support of climate change denial. Enough is enough. Wikipedia does not need sealions nor pseudoscience supporters like yourself. You are a net negative to the project. Do not post on my talkpage again. jps (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfair[edit]

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)

Isleworth[edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

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 [4], 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: [5]. 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.

“Charlatan”?

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)