User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS

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

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Francisco Goya - Casa de locos.jpg Yes, welcome. Manul ~ talk 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. jps (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

“He had been reborn into the knowledge of death; and the inescapability of change, of things-never-the-same, of no-way-back, made him afraid. When you lose the past you're naked in front of contemptuous Azraeel, the death-angel. Hold on if you can, he told himself. Cling to yesterdays. Leave your nail-marks in the grey slope as you slide.” ― Salman Rushdie

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. 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. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Change of heading at WP:NPOV/N[edit]

Hi WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, hope you're well - just a quick note to let you know I've reverted your edit to WP:NPOV/N. The heading you used, although completely valid could cause more issues than necessary. I think in situations like this, given the subject, sticking to something neutral would be a good idea. I hope you can agree, thank you -- samtar talk or stalk 20:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I am going to be taking a step away from this. It's not worth the trouble. jps (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am quite tired of Wikipedia being ham-fisted with clear POV-pushing accounts. You have a long history of playing the fool in these situations, and I guess it's a useful role because it allows you to pretend that you are "impartial", but there is also the tradition of WP:SPADE here, right? jps (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions alert[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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

-The WordsmithTalk to me 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) The Wordsmith, the alert don't do much if you don't say what topic. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
    Looks like the link to "here" after "The Committee's decision is..." is broke. From the tossing around of GG (Gamergate stuff), I think that's the one. Arkon (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    Fixed got the parameter wrong. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AfD/Gordon Franz listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:AfD/Gordon Franz. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:AfD/Gordon Franz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

So...any plan to see what the result of the RfC is and act accordingly, or are you just going to continue to do whatever you want regardless? TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is irrelevant to the issue of the category being applied on pages that have nothing to do with domestic violence. Sorry that you missed that. jps (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TimothyJosephWood 00:39, 24 September 2016 (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. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Radiometric dating[edit]

Any thoughts about this Peter Damian (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should be paying attention to ICR. What ICR tends to get spectacularly wrong is how radiometric dating actually uses all available information rather than focusing on single anomalies. For example, when dating meteorites, all daughter and parent products are fit at once and the age is determined via a statistical best fit. jps (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So is he using the usual trick of focusing on a single problematic item in the whole theory, while ignoring all the available information? On not paying attention to ICR, as you know, my philosophical interest is human rationality. Peter Damian (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Often this is the case, but sometimes they just have mistakes. (Bore yourself to death with this, if you want.) I guess it is always useful to keep in touch with how people make post hoc justifications for their "skepticism". jps (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

re deleting David Wilcock[edit]

I thought you should know that the last attempt to delete this closed as "no consensus", so it's likely your speedy request will get turned down. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the last attempt. jps (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, missed that. My apologies. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) EL removals[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/ Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett[edit]

Hi, I think it is best if I stay away from Jacob Barnett for a while, including its talk page. It could be worse that it is now, but I still see issues. Here is a summary.

  • There has been concern expressed at the weight given to the Edwards reference, although I personally agree with most of its contents.
  • It uses the expressions "demonstrably false" and "not true". These are further removed from accusations of lying than plain "false" but they are not ideal.
  • Surely it is undue weight and unfair to use his wiki to point the finger at a 12-year-old for getting an advanced (not "simple" as claimed by SB and his tag team) calculus problem wrong on prime time television!! I also suspect an OR issue here. How about mentioning his IUPUI scholarship instead?
  • More generally, the whole article is heavily weighted on the media sensationalism. Neither the subject nor his mother should be blamed for this, and in any case the real cause of his notability was not the sensationalism, which is always a feature of popular journalism, but the 12-year-old who, after being diagnosed with autism aged 2, was able to perform advanced calculus.

Viewfinder (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If I might interject here, the integral test is something that is taught in basic first-year calculus. Advanced calculus is an entirely different subject, not usually encountered until later in the calculus curriculum, which includes discussions of more sophisticated tests like tauberian theory, as well as more abstract subjects like methic spaces and integration on manifolds. It is simply false that this was an "advanced calculus" problem. This was a reasonable problem for a first year calculus student, taking a standard calculus course at a US university. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
To add a third hand, I would argue the integral test is part of real analysis rather than calculus, but I don't think that the actual problem is all that interesting. What is interesting is that it was posed and no one bothered to check that it was done correctly. This is just indicative that Barnett was being used by the adults around him for sensationalism rather than being properly nurtured. And I don't blame his mother for this either. She was clearly just trying her best in the context being cut off from people who could actually help teach her son. It looks like things have improved in that regard as he's now at Perimeter, but in the meantime the damage was done. jps (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If that is correct, then things have changed since I was in education, which I completed in 1979. I first encountered calculus at additional ordinary level, aged 15. I studied Maths to advanced level and it was part my engineering syllabus at the University of Cambridge, but I have no memory of integrating the likes sin(2n)/(1 + cos[^4]n) or integral tests (although I do remember studying normal distribution theory. Viewfinder (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have taught all levels of calculus (basic to advanced) at three different major US universities. In all three universities, the integral test was included as a basic part of the curriculum. It appears in the four different textbooks on the subject that I have used as an educator: Thomas' Calculus, Stewart's Calculus, Larson's Calculus, and the Harvard Consortium Calculus. Moreover, series tests appear in a number of editions that substantially predate the 1979 year put forth. Apostol, Anton, and Courant and John's textbooks were popular before the 70s, and all covered series tests in detail. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If I had read Maths at Cambridge I would probably have encountered the above mentioned textbooks. Viewfinder (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Two years ago, I taught the integral test in the part of a course about the mathematical methods for physicists during the exposition of series and sequences (where convergence tests are most vitally important for field theory and QM). I don't think I've ever had cause to use it in my own research, but I do remember learning it rather early on, and thinking that it was not a particularly difficult analytic tool. I think it's taught "early" in the list of convergence tests because it's a rather intuitive argument and has the added benefit of emphasizing the difference between continuous and discrete distributions (says this clunky astronomer). jps (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It's very easy to find syllabuses that all first year natural science students are expected to complete that explicitly list the integral test, e.g., [1]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, "Calc 2" seems about right to me. jps (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Here is my response:
  • I don't understand how the Edwards reference is undue weight. Seems to me it is one of the best independent source we've got, and it is also further backed by other sources.
  • I think it is pretty clear that these accusations of falseness are correct. How that is discussed, of course, is delicate, but I don't think we can escape that fact.
  • I think the point about the calculus problem is that the show he was on was a circus rather than anything legitimate. Unfortunately, that's what the source indicates. Beck's show has always been a circus, so that's not too surprising. It's unfortunate that Barnett was caught up in this nonsense, but I don't think we can right that wrong.
  • I think the article has to be weighted towards media sensationalism. Without the media, there would be zero story. The idea that a 12-year-old can do calculus isn't all that surprising to those of us who know what that entails. It is something to encourage, but it is not the astounding feat that the media wants us to believe it is. The fact that he was diagnosed with autism is also of note, but the autism spectrum is so broad that it lends itself to a certain degree of confusion. An autism diagnosis is a very wide-ranging thing and there are many people who receive such a diagnosis who are brilliant, capable, amazing people (arguably, everyone who receives such a diagnosis is brilliant, capable, and amazing in their own way -- see neurodiversity). Barnett is one of them, but that kind of human interest story is not encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic, sadly, is the media coverage. I wish Wikipedia weren't this way. I wish there was a WP:Right to vanish for article subjects. But there isn't.

jps (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The IUPUI scholarship pre-dated the media circus and that Barnett was awarded this scholarship at 12 must count for some notability, albeit perhaps not enough for an article. Still, I don't want this page to become a continuation of the heated debate that has taken place elsewhere. Viewfinder (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we're doing okay not having heated debate, and actually I don't mind if my talkpage turns into a free-for-all. I don't know that getting a scholarship is all that notable. I mean, did IUPUI themselves make any deal out of this? Where I grew up, the local university took great pride in whisking whiz kids out of their schoolday boredom and infusing them with knowledge. None of those kids have Wikipedia articles. It is a fairly common practice for US universities that are more outward looking, I think, to try to engage with intellectually precocious youngsters as the public (and even most of the private) education systems in the US are not equipped to deal with such children. Not really that newsworthy and certainly not encyclopedic on the individual biographical level. jps (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
(jps)This is just indicative that Barnett was being used by the adults around him for sensationalism rather than being properly nurtured. And I don't blame his mother for this either. She was clearly just trying her best in the context being cut off from people who could actually help teach her son. I am glad you made that point. I have not noticed criticism of his mother in any source other than some carefully worded comments by Edwards. I am still sorry we do not say more about his early years, the point that Barnett found his passion for astronomy during home schooling is, to my mind, notable. Viewfinder (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I read excerpts from The Spark that I could find on-line and it seems to me that whoever ghostwrote the book did her no favors with regards to her son's fame. Her name is listed as the author, of course (as is always the case with bookdeal books such as this -- I have a friend in the industry), but if you get a bad ghostwriter that can tarnish you forever. Not to mention that the talkshow appearances that I watched all led her down the garden path. This poor woman was just trying to get the best possible for her son. She should be commended for that, but because the media wanted a story about disproving Einstein (sigh) we get notability that is totally out-of-whack. There's nothing we as Wikipedians, though, can do about it. Maybe we should contact some journalists, though, and see if they want to write a story. It's actually an excellent object lesson and they could tear down a bunch of ridiculous North American mainstream media outlets in the process (who need tearing down, if you ask me). jps (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

UK and other European broadcasters took up this case too! Viewfinder (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Right, so it's global media incompetence we're dealing with here. ABOVE MY PAYGRADE! ;) jps (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't like sensationalism either but I suspect that if its outlets are torn down it will re-emerge. But truth or fairy tale, for the millions who are affected by or live with people affected by disability, the tale of the toddler with moderate to severe autism growing up into the boy who became fascinated by quantum physics was heart warming and inspirational. And unfortunately those outlets that put the bells on are likely to hold on to more of their readers than those who do not. Edwards was more accurate, sure, but I bet he got nothing like the readership of the other sources. The authors of Genesis may not have got factually right, but they still attract more readers than the cosmologists (sigh...) Viewfinder (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I hear you. At the end of the day, it's that people with disabilities get essentialized (ala Rain Man). I think the fact that Barnett is working on his doctorate is inspiring enough. We'll see what comes out of that, my hope is that he stays in academics and can become his own advocate. With any luck, this article will become a section in something larger and more interesting. jps (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Referring to others who disagree with you as "incompetent" and saying that they "don't belong here" is a personal attack and is entirely inappropriate - please desist from personalising discussions in this way.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Trying to get this essay deleted was a poor idea.

Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

At ANI[edit]

Would you please acknowledge there that your comments to Randykitty were inappropriate? They really were. Your reply there isn't sufficient, really. This is the kind of thing that will come back to bite you, hard. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


A less controversial question about this journal: did you contact Elsevier about it like you said you would do today on FTN? Everymorning (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did! Thanks for asking. I talked to a managing editor (who is different than a journal editor -- they basically handle promotional issues) and let them know about the problem. They are going to be contacting me about it shortly. This was the same way I got OUP to stop publishing a pseudoscientific textbook a few years back. jps (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible academic review board[edit]

I think you know that Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) created a foundation which gets various M.D.'s to review core medical articles. I was wondering whether there might be some sort of way to propose at a meeting of one of the science, like maybe the American Academy of Sciences, to set up something maybe similar for the broad field of science.

In this case, maybe, the members of the academy might have as their primary calling reviewing articles being nominated for GA, A, or FA, as well as any changes to directly science related articles already at one of those assessment grades. They might also, I suppose, respond to directly relevant RfC's and/or help in dealing with maybe some of the quality tags on various articles, perhaps particularly the expert attention needed tags, and, maybe, on some sort of noticeboard or noticeboard section specific to them.

Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I'm on holiday at the moment, thinking about what to do about expert review. There is no foundation, yet, but that was part of the plan. I'll write something up over the next week or two and point you both to it when it makes sense. (Pinging User:Biosthmors who asked about this in an email recently.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Re-ping User:Biosthmors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be good to have such a board that was completely independent of Wikipedia in the sense of it being auxiliary. I think a blog, for example, that would write reviews of Wikipedia articles would be a great idea. jps (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (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 () 18:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at WT:NJOURNALS[edit]

Stop icon

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

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