User talk:ජපස

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

User:Mangoe/Prodigy[edit]

I'm getting ready to write a guideline proposal; be my guest in contributing. Mangoe (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a list somewhere of the AfDs that can serve as "precedent" including, of course, the J. Barnett saga and a few others. My argument has always been that the general rule for accepting a prodigy as article-worthy would be serious (as in not off-hand comments) engagement by the epistemic communities in which prodigious achievement is claimed. For example, if the claim is that the child is a prodigy in mathematics, there should be some evidence that the child has actually published in the requisite journals. If the child is claimed to be a prodigy in music, there should be some evidence of performance at the level of a professional achievement that would normally apply to musicians (or a recording contract). Etc. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a first cut, if you'd like to take a look. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This was just the impetus I needed. I tried to contextualize a bit and tone down some of the language. Also included a list. jps (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe[edit]

Hello. I have never seen you visibly edit on any article on fabulous creatures whatsoever, so I don't know what sort of ideas you have.

But when you revert an article (Mokele-mbembe) to a purged version, don't just tell us you think Bloodofox's edit is superior, as that gives us no indication as to specifically what underlying reasoning you yourself have to make you think the purge is justified.

You need to take responsibility for your own edits, and be able to articulate the reasons why you think the 32kbytes of content merits removal. You can't just say this other guy did it and you agree with him. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. I have read your arguments and the other arguments, read both versions, and I have made my conclusion. jps (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on this without demonstrating you've read any of the source material to make a decision on your own as to what is WP:DUE content or not.
Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision. That is not responsible editing behavior in Wikipedia.
Specifically, tell me how you yourself justify the "conclusion" you have reached that the expeditions of Powell and Mackal should be eliminated altogether. These are quite central to the topic. They are described at length even in Prothero's critical even antagonistic treatment of the topic in Abominable Science.[1] --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Kiyoweap, you are currently at 3RR and have been reverted by three people. Complaining about edit warring here is only weakening your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why are you on your 10th username? That seems a bit... excessive. Enigmamsg 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Because of off-wiki harassment. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Enigmamsg 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Skylab mutiny?[edit]

Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Take the leap. It is an improvement! jps (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

Dear ජපස, @JzG: and @Jps: and just in that action I have shown my ignorance of coding and wiki etiquette! Anyway my question is concerning your signatures; can an editor use two signatures at the same time, and it seems to me in the same conversations, and for what reason. My concern, being honest, was that yet another disruptive editor flying by Aquatic ape hypothesis following some article / publicity / etc, (in this case an action which, at first glance, I doubt, but will, when I can, check what changes have happened), and editing what has taken many many editors a very long time to get to a reasonably informative and balanced state as it is. Am happy for either / all to reply. Thanks Edmund Patrick confer 11:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Is your confusion over the fact that I had to switch usernames? If so, I apologize. It did not have to do with the AAH article. jps (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It was, still is a bit, but I will get my head around it. Ta Edmund Patrick confer 15:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

ජපස or jps[edit]

Hi. Another editor saw fit to remove both my comments and yours, but I found your response, nonetheless; thank you. I am, in fact, curious, but not savvy about technical issues. Sometime in the past I figured out how to sign my name YoPienso instead of Yopienso, which is my official user name. Now I can't find any of that stuff again. To me, that's a slight, unconfusing difference--changing one lower-case letter to upper case. However, I did not recognize ජපස as your initials in another language since I'm ignorant of that language. I wondered if they were characters of some alphabet or script unknown to me, or if they were some kind of emoji or decoration. I never imagined when I saw comments signed with ජපස and other comments signed with jps that one and the same person made them. This gave the appearance of two people holding the same opinions; in other words, it gave the appearance of a false consensus between two different individuals. Hence, my comment about sockpuppetry. I would think this could be confusing to other WP editors, too. You would likely become frustrated trying to explain to me how you have only one signature while I clearly "believe I see" two, so no need to trouble yourself with it. Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Expelled[edit]

Would you care to respond to this? You may have missed it in the shuffle. Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ark Encounter article ban lifted[edit]

Hi. Per this, your article ban on Ark Encounter has been lifted. Let me know if it was logged somewhere and if that needs to be removed. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! jps (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've logged the successful appeal here, Regentspark. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Happy Holidays![edit]

Snow Covered Trees Starry Night (166032201).jpeg Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

poll[edit]

Hi, we've interacted, although it unlikely you remember I want to put that on the table and establish this is not some sort of grudge-post. I do hope this message finds you well :-) This is not your field I think, but we are both skeptiks of a type and I am curious, if asked, then what would your answer be? What is a gorilla? cygnis insignis 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A genus of great ape. jps (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A simple question, a simple answer. At least almost … What is a "great ape"? It is nice to see you are still around. cygnis insignis 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A family of primates. jps (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I needed this sanity check, thank you mate. cygnis insignis 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Friend Dlo[edit]

You are a friend of Dlo, a F()//?AOo)))))000000oTt77Jjjjj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.202.119 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis (no article necessary)[edit]

Your recent edit on Answers in Genesis ([2]) removed the 'the' in "instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science". However, I believe the article should still be in place. Consider the sentence "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him". Clearly, "Tom" is a proper noun, and so it wouldn't normally require an article. However, in this case, an article is needed to indicate that it was Tom who said that "it was too much of a bother", and it is also the same Tom who is "lazy". Getting rid of the article, in this case, would create the impression that "Tom" and "lazy Tom" are two different people. Linking that back to our case, getting rid of the 'the' in "the pseudoscientific creation science" creates the false impression that "pseudoscientific creation science" is the common term used to refer to the pseudoscience of "creation science". With that in mind, please reconsider your most recent edit.OlJa 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "the pseudoscientific one and the one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "a pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at Talk:Answers in Genesis? Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how it's incredibly awkward, and I am pretty positive it is correct usage-wise. Your version would also be correct if "pseudoscientific creation science" was a term, but, unfortunately, it isn't.
Let me explain the function of "the" here again: the definite article, used in this way, does not imply there are two forms of creation science - just as saying "the lazy Tom" does not imply that there is also a Tom that is not lazy; in fact, it implies the opposite: that the creation science that we are referring to, which is the only creation science there is, is pseudoscientific - in the same way that "the lazy Tom" implies that the Tom that we are talking about, who is the only Tom there is, is lazy.
I didn't post this on Talk:Answers in Genesis because I thought it was a really minor issue, and that you'd simply self-revert and that would be it. If you don't do that, however, I will probably take it to MOS.
Also, I know you probably won't take this advice seriously, but I think that, when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar (such as this one (adding "for" to "advocates") and this one) but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar.OlJa 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, let's look at your example. "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him." This would not pass the muster where I'm from. Preferred, "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but Tom lazily said it was too much of a bother for him." for example. Note that English, however, doesn't have very clear rules about when to use an article or when not to use an article. In this situation, what sounds good to your ears is grating on mine. Better to come up with an alternative like Dave's which sidesteps the issue. jps (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The two sentences are saying two different things: in the first one, "lazy" is an adjective which modifies "Tom"; in the second one, "lazily" is an adverb which modifies "said". That is, the first one says that it is Tom who is lazy, while the second one makes no claim about Tom, instead saying that the way in which he said that it was too much of a bother for him was lazy. Saying that English doesn't have very clear rules is problematic, as it then justifies the use of what is almost unanimously accepted to bad grammar. This approach won't get us anywhere. I can't give you the precise term which describes the usage of "the" in this way, but, according to what, to my knowledge, is accepted to be rules of the English language, the current version is misleading. It's unfortunate that you won't take on my advice, but I will have to take this discussion to WP:MOS, where the issue will hopefully be resolved.OlJa 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do bring it up at WT:MOS. I insist that there is no rule you can point to which indicates your preference for including a definite article to mean what you want it to mean is standard. Furthermore, although I am getting the impression that you are very rule-bound in your approach to many things, understand that your position is that of linguistic prescription which is an approach that I find to be counterproductive when it comes to points where reasonable people can disagree (and I predict you will find others who disagree with you on this point). Take a chance on opening your mind a bit here. You might learn something. jps (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2019 (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!OlJa 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mediation Policy[edit]

Please note that the Mediation Policy still exists and, if you read it carefully, expressly applies to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though formal mediation through the Mediation Committee no longer exists (and the language in the Mediation Policy referring to it was removed), DRN in most cases does mediation and private mediation can be arranged on a case by case basis and is still also possible. The change you made in the DRN header was inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creationism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Material world and Humanity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
for your heroic defense of the encyclopedia against invading UFOs (and the conspiracy theorists who pilot them.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Craig Revert[edit]

Good Morning,

I wanted to follow up on the discussion we were having in the edit summaries of the William Lane Craig page. To summarize the talk page discussion (as well as the three previous discussions where this issue was raised and settled), this is a discussion of the reception, at large, of Dr Craig. The debate challenge with Prof Dawkins is certainly a notable event (notable enough that it is also mentioned on Prof. Dawkins' page). Prof Dawkins' response (especially given Prof Dawkins' notability) is a good inclusion to a section of a biography dealing with reception. Further, the quote by Prof Came, being both a referent to that incident and an indicator of Dr Craig's standing in the field of Philosophy of Religion is worthy as well. I get from your reversion that you disagree. If you have a more detailed reason, I'd invite you to the talk page to discuss it. Alternatively, if you respond here or on my talk page I'd be happy to discuss it with you further. Squatch347 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) This discussion should probably happen at Talk:William Lane CraigPaleoNeonate – 13:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I invited him in my initial edit summary to add to that discussion. Since he didn't I thought I would reply here and extend that invite. Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I am active at that discussion. Unclear why you think I'm not. jps (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I've not seen that many tags before (well, maybe from LeProf) —PaleoNeonate – 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────We could pare them down, but literally all of them apply. It's an outrageously bad article. Is there a collapsable function? jps (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently |collapsed=yesPaleoNeonate – 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If it still doesn't work (can't see it collapsed without JS here), I recommend also trying:
{{Multiple issues|collapsed=yes|1=
 ...other tags...
 }}
PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Seemed to work for me. My god, I haven't seen such a shitty article in a long time. jps (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Glad that it worked; I'm in a situation where I'm constantly interrupted so cannot currently put the concentration to assess an article (or to participate constructively on its talk page), but will try to look at it soon... —PaleoNeonate – 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Apologies for not notifying you on your talk page. I thought notification on the related talk page was appropriate initially, but see that I need to notify everyone individually.

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!

Squatch347 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:GretLomborg. Thank you. GretLomborg (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:GretLomborg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. jps, I believe you should know that that comment was not acceptable. I believe that in this conflict you are on the right side, but I will not let you make such comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just stop engaging with him. jps (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Right side or not, do you regard this response as adequate? cygnis insignis 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis, how do you mean? Proof is in the pudding: if jps says something like that again I'll have to block him, but I think jps is a man of his word (hmm that sounds sexist, but you know what I mean). Drmies (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Drmies And excuse this jps. The user has undertaken to desist from engaging in that manner with that other user, once you called it out, not to never do it again. (And I don't personally read that as sexist, it is thought to be a notable attribute for a man (which sounds sexist, but …)) Regards, cygnis insignis 07:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience topic ban[edit]

Hi there, I wasn't aware that Petrarchan47 was under a topic ban. Would you mind pointing me to where it was imposed? Are anti-vaxx theories definitely out of scope? It's certainly unrelated, as it's pushing fringe medical theories. R2 (bleep) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to her participation at Sharyl Attkisson, it has nothing to do with Petra's t-ban which is GMOs. Atsme Talk 📧 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you please point me to where it was imposed? R2 (bleep) 00:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The log. Atsme Talk 📧 01:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)This is the original AE. Part of if was battleground behavior in the topic, but there were advocacy problems and pushing fringe theories with respect to GMOs, which also falls under the pseudoscience topic. I don't know what's been going on elsewhere lately with them, but if there are problems with vaccines or other areas of pseudoscience related to medicine, that would at least be grounds discussing expanding topic bans to those areas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and who were the prosecutors? (That's all you needed to know.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
No, there was no battleground behavior on her part, but there was for others. BLP/N supported Petra's position. Atsme Talk 📧 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be better if you want to talk about Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs) to do so at her page. I have pinged her for the right of reply here. I do worry that her WP:ADVOCACY is problematic, and I have always been transparent about this concern. jps (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
JPS - weren't you just warned about AGF, yet here you are with unwarranted concerns about advocacy regarding an editor who is simply adhering to BLP policy and expecting others to do the same? BLPN overwhelmingly supported her position. I could understand paid advocacy and COI editing, but that isn't happening in this case at all, believe me. Atsme Talk 📧 21:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In fairness, JPS is the only participant in this discussion to have pinged the other editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree...and we should probably take his advice. I've got dog articles to edit. Happy editing!! Atsme Talk 📧 21:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, the only conversing required about this is for jps to provide proof of his claim made here regarding the reason for my ban. It isn't me who is discredited by this mention of my t-ban. The reason for it is very clear, and has been very clearly mischaracterized, disparaging me on a talk page that is getting hundreds of views. This isn't fair to me unless your claim is true. So please, cite your proof at the RfC where I've pinged you. Thanks, petrarchan47คุ 22:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)