User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV)
Jump to: navigation, search

American politics 2 arbitration case opened[edit]

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon[edit]

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed[edit]

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase[edit]

Hello I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Honestly, I'm not the bad person/editor/whatever you think I am. Obviously, we both have an interest in science. How about we work on the article about Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new StarTalk TV show? I created a stub here.[1] I missed last night's episode but it's going to re-air this Friday. Would you like to help me with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to bury the hatchet. jps (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been offline the last couple days, however, I believe that we were making progress. Your last suggestion that we explain how it is critical is something that I agree with, and I'd like to pursue that further. On a side note, I forgot to set my DVR to record StarTalk before Monday, but it aired again last night and I hope to watch it tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Gang editing[edit]

You are not a "particularly good scientist", and I shall be watching your edits carefully.-Pocketthis (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Exciting! Incidentally, I don't know why you used "particularly good scientist" in quotation. [2]. jps (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, Pocketthis. I am a "particularly good scientist," if I do say so myself, and I'm watching his edits. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed[edit]

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Brews' disruption[edit]

I am doing my best not to go anywhere near the talk page in face of the relentless flooding of the talk page. The problem as originally presented to me was that Brews knows his stuff but has problems engaging productively with other editors. But that is not the problem at all. It's one of basic competence. I have put together a list here. Some of them are very basic errors like misunderstanding implication, or the parallel postulate. If he actually listened and corrected these mistakes it would be fine, but he just relentlessly spams the talk page with nonsense. This makes it difficult for other editors to follow the discussion. He was banned from physics related articles, can he be banned from all philosophy related ones? On a technicality, he doesn't understand the philosophy at all, but he thinks the free will problem can be 'solved' by quantum indeterminism or something like that. So it's not a philosophical perspective he is bringing at all, but rather physics (and poorly understood physics, as far as I can see). Can he be barred for that reason? Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah and see this edit. This is physics (probably bad physics,who knows) used to make a bad philosophical point. Peter Damian (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

PS I also note your comment here. "It is why you are banned from editing certain other articles." Given that the same problem applies here in spades, can the reason he is banned from physics not be used as a reason to ban from philosophy? Was that ban simply from all physics-related articles, or was it for the synthesis problem? Peter Damian (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sooner or later the problem will need to be addressed at the source—some people cause enormous disruption yet are hard to dislodge because clueless onlookers think it's just another dispute. I wonder if JohnBlackburne has any ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why Wikipedia:Competence is required never got into policy. It's a neat idea. Be as welcoming as is reasonable, but at some point the disruption has to stop. The problem is when there is an inverse relation between competence and arrogance, which is what is happening here. I am sure Brews achieved mastery of his own particular field (MOS and transistors), and as a result he has strong confidence in his ability to master other subject areas. The confidence is misplaced, however, and this is what makes it so difficult. He refuses to take on board even the very simplest point Peter Damian (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs a case to be properly drafted at ANI by several editors not just one. That would make it clearer that its not just another dispute. ----Snowded TALK 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that, because of the very few competent editors now involved in Philosophy articles, there won't be many 'several editors'. Peter Damian (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Coordinating at WP:FTN might be a good way to start (thought sometimes there are no other editors there who feel competent enough to help out if the subject is obscure). I think we have enough of a quorum here to go to WP:AN (I would avoid going to AN/I because it's more of a circus) to ask for a topic ban from philosophy articles. jps (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I have a sandpit with some diffs to the last round where he hit multiple articles, and then created some. This time its mostly Free Will. So it just needs drafting ----Snowded TALK 12:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Where is the sandpit? I could help draft something, but I would not be prepared to post anything, given I have just returned to Wikipedia from 'a long absence'. Peter Damian (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC) [edit] Is it this by any chance? Peter Damian (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here it is happy to work collaboratively and post ----Snowded TALK 13:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done so. Peter Damian (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
That sandbox looks to contain problems that are broader than I was anticipating. Is a topic ban from philosophy pages going to be enough? I would hope so because Peter Damian and I both know how ridiculous sitebans can be. jps (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
For my part I am perfectly happy not to see him around any of the philosophy articles. He may be OK at other subjects. Peter Damian (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_from_philosophy_for_Brews_ohare. I took much of your wording without attribution in typical slimy Wikipedia fashion. I also included some background from Snowded's page, though much of his stuff looked more like a WP:AE request rather than a new point which is why I think Peter's argument may be a bit more toothy. jps (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Note I added some material to the sandbox (POV forks) which crossed with your post. Peter Damian (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I made an alternative proposal at ANI. Philosophy will not be enough, but letting him back into Physics but with general restrictions might just work ----Snowded TALK 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Quantum nonsense[edit]

I made a start on the [User:Peter_Damian/Free_will gardening thing]. It's not completely walled in, but the one to watch is Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. He is clearly not the same person as Brews but they are on the same side of the fence. For example:

Doyle describes himself as an "Information Philosopher". He argues that information philosophy can shed light on some classical unsolved problems, specifically free will, values, and knowledge.
Doyle's basic argument is that quantum mechanics, especially the wave function collapse, and the second law of thermodynamics play a key role in the creation of information structures. These structures range from galaxies, stars, and planets, to molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. They are the structures of terrestrial life from viruses and bacteria to sensible and intelligent beings. And they are the constructed ideal world of thought, of intellect, of spirit, including the laws of nature, in which humans play a role as co-creator.

I don't know anything about quantum mechanics, except that these sorts of claims are dodgy. I will post something on FTN.

I had recently posted on FTN about Menas Kafatos. It seems to me that there is a cottage industry of people taking advantage of the fact that we don't teach quantum mechanics very well at the level of primary and secondary education. jps (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"He is internationally known[1][2][3] for bridging the disciplines [of science and philosophy]". To use the word 'know' presumes the truth of the claim of bridging the gap. I imagine philosophers would be skeptical of that claim. The sources don't say he bridged the disciplines, nor do they look reliable, for that matter. How much of this stuff is there? Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


“quantum mystics seem to interpret the wave function as some kind of vibration of a holistic ether that pervades the universe, as “real” as the vibration in air we call a sound wave. Wave function collapse, in their view, happens instantaneously throughout the universe by a willful act of cosmic consciousness. In their book The Conscious Universe, Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau identify the wave function with “Being-In-Itself"" [3]. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

More quantum walled garden[edit]

Two-stage model of free will Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Per xkcd. MastCell Talk 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof[edit]

Comments welcome Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm starting to look at Determinism which is horrible. I am reading a book for the popular market (but the author seems to know his stuff) which talks about the 'quasiclassical' or 'non quantum' universe, which behaves as if determined by the classical laws of physics. On the hypothesis of a quasiclassical system, we don't need to worry about quantum effects. He writes:

The macroscopic universe we inhabit seems to obey deterministic laws because of an effect known as decoherence, which effectively reinstates classical mechanics at the level of systems above the very, very small ... quantum indeterminacy has no implications for human action because we inhabit the macroscopic universe.

Is this correct? [PS I looked at the article on decoherence which is completely incomprehensible]. Peter Damian (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Decoherence is exactly the issue with why quantum indeterminacy rarely manifests in the macroscopic world. Quantum computing deals with decoherence as one of the major problems that has prevented implementing quantum computers. Yes, I would say the author is correct.
However, there is also a property of emergence which can turn fully deterministic micro-systems into indeterminate macro-systems owing to effects that are related to non-linearity and chaos. This means that even though the underlying classical models are deterministic, indeterminate statistical modeling of systems can result. To be clear, there are fully deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics as well.
jps (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted[edit]

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC[edit]

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


You made a personal attack against me with this edit in which you called me a climate change denier. Please remove your WP:Battleground behavior and refrain from personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
  2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
  3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed


Reflecting on it further, I find the PVS research track record itself a lot more 'extraordinary' than the claim itself. Going through this literature I could find no explicit direct confirmation of the existence of this structure really independent of the discoverer. Neither a refutation. Every confirmation are 'indirect,' in that since they study the properties of this structure one can deduce it exists.

As I understand pathological science, it studies phenomena that might be real, but whose experimental validation is subject to unknown experimental conditions because the underlying principles are not well understood. So the scientists sometimes report positive, sometimes negative, and do not understand why either way. Or it could all be bunk. Only time and proper scientific process can really tell. LENR comes to mind.

But this PVS is not even pathological science. If these guys are right, it is here, independently of any experimental conditions. The presence of this thing in the body is not going to depend of, say, atmospheric pressure or the phases of the moon. At worst one must take care to follow the right operative procedure to avoid to inadvertently destruct this thing, or create artefacts. It's even all carefully explained and documented in their papers. If you do what they say and if they are right, this thing appears and is evidenced. So, it's binary.

But it seems that since 10 years by now that this scientific UFO flies in the scientific literature, no independent laboratory has cared to do that. If they would fail to replicate, I would expect them to publish a 'failure to replicate' report, so that the record could be set straight and we would not have to wonder.

That is pretty incredible. Even assuming your supposition is correct and the original description in The American Anatomist was not subjected to proper critical review, one would think that this should have attracted the attention of at least one specialist outside South-Korea that would have attempted to independently verify these claims and publish the results. That it wasn't done in 10 years shows in any case and independently of the validity of these claims deep dysfunctions in the scientific process. It is actually a source of worry, isn't it? Syl (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The lack of notice by outsiders is fairly remarkable considering how obsessive the internet can be. Why no one has noticed this particular claim may have more to do with the current state of academic literature that has proliferated in the last 30 years. It may be that there is more in the Korean language, but I am not able to check that. jps (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you may very well be right. Syl (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, since you wondered about the 'stem cell angle' I think I understand how they came to that.
Currently we have a gaping hole in our understanding of developmental biology. Allow me to explain. From one side, we have by now a very precise description of how an embryo develops itself. From the other side, we have deciphered the DNA. When the Human Genome project begun, we thought that the development was completely controlled by the genes and the 'building program' was encoded in the DNA. But, contrary to these expectations, 15 years after completion of the DNA mapping, it does not compute. In fact, we know that there is simply not enough information encoded in the DNA to describe the development of an embryo. More information is encoded elsewhere, but we do not know where and how. Currently biologists are investing 'junk DNA,' which may be not so junk after all. Anyway a piece of the puzzle is clearly missing.
When you study embryology, it's blatantly obvious that the three-dimensional embryo's development seems to be driven along 'guiding lines,' especially at the histological level.
I suppose that when they discovered these ducts, they thought out a model where these primo-vessels would play the role of these guiding lines. One deduction of this model is that the specialized tissues may differentiate from these vessels. That would imply that these vessels contain loads of pluripotent undifferentiated cells - stem cells. Maybe even these vessels would continue to function at the end of the organism's growth as a kind of undifferentiated cell store for tissues regeneration.
From this hypothesis, they could derive a research program to validate it : look out for stem cells in these ducts in adult organisms.
Based on their publication record, they found them. Several time over, now.
I understand that you loath them, but objectively these guys are extremely smart. Either way. Syl (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think I loathe them or think them not smart? I have never said such a thing anywhere!
You insisted that it was 'acupuncturism' ? Syl (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
To me, "acupuncturism" is not a synonym for "subject to loathe" or "subject only believed by the stupid". jps (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
All right. I do not believe in acupuncture, myself. Syl (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither do I. But attributing belief in such to stupidity and loathing believers is not my game (in spite of what some that are around here may tell you). jps (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Before you stepped in the discussion, I was really wondering in which kind of Kindergarten I had landed. It seemed that no sane communication was possible. I felt pretty alone, and you may understand that I did not have appreciated to be faced with such a behaviour. I usually do _not_ participate in debates on Internet, as you might find out by a Google search. This time I thought the topic was significant enough to warrant that, but I also thought that Wikipedia would be a place where such debate would be thoughtful. Well...
Anyway, one of my objective was to really go to the bottom of this story. Increase my critical skills. Thanks to you I did learned. Thank you very much for that, Josh. Syl (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, one point to consider is geopolitical. Only 30 years ago, South-Korea was a considered a third-world country. Now it is classified as first-world country, and its standard of living is higher than mine. It is considered the most innovative country of the world. This is impressive and show they are far from being stupid. They have a generation of young well-educated scientists in their mid-thirties. They are eager for world-recognition, as the site of Nano Primo Research Center states. If they go for something, it's not for a scam but for the real thing - I do believe. Syl (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, but this is also something that makes it difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. To return to an old friend, cold fusion research occurs in India and seems to be governmentally-supported from time to time for similar sounding reasons. jps (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, they might be right to do that. You have no way to know. :-) Syl (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am fed up now. I leave the debate : I think I have brought in everything I could. It was a pleasure to debate with somebody as smart as you. I do not expect to do that again, because I do not expect do anything on WP anymore. Syl (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2015 (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.

Notice of ANI[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. [4] Atsme📞📧 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of SPI case[edit]

I have opened an SPI investigation. link AlbinoFerret 20:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My Apologies[edit]

I am sorry for any trouble I might have caused you. If I could fix it I would but I suspect any effort would just make things worse. (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. This just helps to highlight the problem, I think. jps (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please stop making personal attacks as you did here: "People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not competent enough to be editing Wikipedia. If you cannot answer a straightforward question about whether or not it has been showed that this hoax is a hoax, then I'm afraid you do not have the cognitive skills to be contributing to a reference site such as this."

You have been previously warned, several times, about making these kinds of comments in violation of WP:NPA. Combined with you recent edit warring, and notice board cross posting, your disruption has become very conspicuous. I suggest that join the rest of us in collaborating and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.- MrX 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also noting this personal attack and blatant WP:CANVASSING. If you continue with this trajectory, I will raise it at ANI.- MrX 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that it was shown that the Enfield Poltergeist was a hoax? I'm still waiting for your answer to that question. I'm surprised it's so difficult for you to answer. See... because you said in one edit summary that you think this instance was a hoax, but somehow you don't think that the people who showed it was a hoax actually showed it was a hoax. Seems like pedantry in the extreme. Alternatively, you don't think it was shown to be a hoax. jps (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not about whether it's a hoax or not, it's about whether you're attacking and insulting other editors. Which you seem to be doing. I think it's a hoax, but if you keep insulting people and breaking the no personal attacks policy I will block you. It's against Wikipedia policy, it's damaging to the encyclopedia project, and is not OK. Is that clear? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Are you my dad? You're acting all paternalistic, Sir Admin. Pretty weird that you're not allowed to say that people who believe in poltergeists shouldn't be editing Wikipedia pages about poltergeists because, well, it probably indicates that they aren't very competent. And competency is required. Just because someone doesn't have cognitive skills to edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile people. It is a judgment of their skill set. We can't literally be the encyclopedia that everyone edits, can we? No, I think we can't. That would be a recipe for disaster. Want to damage the encyclopedia? Let the poltergeist believers have free reign to explain how a poltergeist hoax case has not been shown to be a hoax. jps (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your further personal attack here [[5]] Ghughesarch (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to offer an opinion that an editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Nor is it a personal attack to accuse a position that editor takes of being a denial of basic facts. Personal attacks are things like, "you are a terrible person". jps (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is however a violation of the civility pillar to get in people's faces about it rather than just raise an AN or ANI investigation of their competence, or politely engage to see if you can gather proper evidence thereof. Even editors who fail WP:COMPETENCE are to be treated like human beings.
Regarding the first edit, the competence question is not what got you out on the thinnest ice. The reference to insufficient cognitive skills is what got you there. The pattern of how you approach the competence issue there and the second quote is not good but not borderline blockable. Insults such as insufficient cognitive skills are blockable.
I agree with you on the underlying facts as shown by the reference. I'll still block you if you keep insulting people. Because content problems can be fixed, and abusing users can't be. Please relax and deal with this in a more constructive manner. Insulting people degrades the conversation and hardens positions rather than solving problems.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That was a bit better in your explanation. Here's my issue: I start out working on an article and get reverted. I try to explain why the revert is bad on talk and receive silence. I revert back and get reverted with claims that there is no consensus. I try to get other people involved and often am not successful. Of course, the other participants cry "CANVASS" when I try to get third-parties. This pattern is essentially the same over and over again. Sometimes mew participants enter but sometimes they don't. It's when I don't get new participants that problems come to a head like this. jps (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On competence[edit]

WP:CIR is a wonderful essay, but apparently there is a large contingent of Wikipedians including our illustrious admin visitor above who think making direct appeals to it is a blockable offense. I think that this is a facile view of (in)civility and may be one of the reasons that the project suffers from so many fringe theory proponents dominating the discussions and, in some cases, the content on pages related to fringe theories. When I discuss the major issues with Wikipedia with people who are not intimately involved with this website as I am, most people dismiss them as being parochial concerns except when it comes to reliability. Then people acknowledge an issue, especially with obscure topics. The idea that most people have is that hobbyists and enthusiasts will be the ones writing the articles (and I think largely that this prejudice is probably correct) and while that may work for most subjects from movie trivia to mathematics, it fails spectacularly when it comes to the paranormal, ufology, alternative medicine, etc. So that's what we're dealing with here: a reliability problem brought on by the fact that Wikipedia suffers fools gladly. Or, to put it more charitably, there is no editorial control of content (the consensus model cannot work when you have fringe proponents propping each other up).

jps (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

James Hydrick[edit]

Sorry to bother you with this. On the Hydrick page there is the same IP who keep vandalizing the article, do you know how to report this person. A little angry (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is an IP, the best thing to do is go to WP:RPP to ask for semi-protection which will prevent IP editing for a brief period of time. You can also report to the fringe theory noticeboard if there are issues with unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. I will ask for page protection. jps (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)