User talk:Robertinventor

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

User:Robertinventor/subpages

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Robertinventor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rapture[edit]

I appreciate your interest in the Rapture article. I would not have otherwise had much interest in editing there, but the events of the last few days have changed my mind. I'm sure that you have been following Donald Trump's ill-conceived plan to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Well, there is one of several reasons for this——one which many are unware. You may think I'm crazy to say this but, here it is:

  • Rapturism is largely controlling US foreign policy in the Middle East right now. Even before Trump, it has been exerting pressure on our leaders for a long time (luckily, other presidents kept its pressure at arms length).
  • Fundamentalist minsters/ministries are a lucrative and powerful industry in the US and are a powerful lobby particularly within the Republican Party. Many of these minsters are Rapturists. During the campaign, Trump promised to the minsters that he would move the embassy. Note that after he announced the plan, the minsters applauded.[1][2]
  • Not that Trump knows or cares a single thing about theology, but he is cynically trying to placate a powerful political interest in order to get votes, even if it means causing chaos destroying the peace process in Palestine. And, everybody knows that Trump doesn't like Muslims...
  • I'm not necessarily saying that most of the Rapturist ministers who supported him hate Muslims——three is a mechanism we need to understand—they subscribe to a theology that they feel justifies their views.[3][4]
  • A lot of the adherents of Rapture theology want to hasten the pace of WWIII, so that they can get raptured up to heaven sooner. They see the references to Jerusalem in the book of Revelation as a temporal place where Jesus will convert the Jews to Christianity during the 1000 year reign after the second coming.[5]
  • Most mainline Christian denominations, including Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, most Lutherans, and even many old-school Baptists do not subscribe to Rapture theology and are generally unaware of it. So, discussion of the issue takes very low priority in ecumenical discussions with evangelicals. That is going to need to change. I read a book a few years ago, that demonstrates (using scripture) how Rapturism is actually completely out of step with what is written the Bible——it is sad that certain people want to destroy the peace process——all for a misunderstanding of scripture. I think that it should be the goal of Christians, like everyone else of every other faith and nonfaith, to work for peace. I think that is what Jesus would have wanted.

So, I hope that what I just said doesn't sound too way-out. Believe it or not, I want to be neutral in my editing at the article. I just felt a need to clarify there that the Rapturist view is not held by most Christians. The way the article was previously written made it look as if Rapturism is an essential Christian Doctrine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Yes actually that's my main reason for working on the article too. I only heard of this Jerusalem thing a week or two ago and yes - I learnt that it is exactly as you described. I wrote a debunking article about it here for my Debunking Doomsday blog: Debunked: Idea: world is going to end soon because Trump recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel. So - yes it does seem very way out to me living in the UK. Here religious prophecies and religious interpretations of the Bible don't enter into politics - and we don't even have the idea of the rapture at all in the theology of the Church of England or Church of Scotland or most of the smaller denominations here either. Unless you count the Jehovah's Witnesses who have a modified rapture doctrine (not raptured in their physical bodies), most people have probably never come encountered such ideas and they probably haven't talked to Jehovah's Witnesses enough to find out what they believe. As you say, I think most Christians here in the UK would not only not hold this doctrine, but be unaware that anyone does believe in the rapture, and the Jerusalem prophecy would just seem bizarre. I'm told that in the Bible belt in the States many people hear this doctrine including the Jerusalem thing as they grow up and are taught it by Christian preachers too. Diana Butler Bass, writing for CNN puts it like this:

"When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I attended a "Bible church," a nondenominational congregation that prided itself on a singular devotion to scripture. We read the Bible all the time: in personal Bible study and evening Bible classes. We listened to hourlong Sunday morning sermons. For us, the Bible was not just a guide to piety. It also revealed God's plan for history. Through it, we learned how God had worked in the past and what God would do in the future."

"Central to that plan was Jerusalem, the city of peace, and the dwelling place of God. It was special to the Jews because it was the home of Abraham and David. It was special to us because it was where Jesus had died and risen. We believed that ultimately, Christ would return to Jerusalem to rule as its king. We longed for this outcome -- and we prayed that human history would help bring about this biblical conclusion."

"Jerusalem was our prophetic bellwether. God's plan hung on its fate. Whenever Israel gained more political territory, whenever Israel extended its boundaries, it was God's will, the end-times unfolding on the evening news. Jerusalem, as the spiritual heart of Israel, mattered. Jerusalem was God's holy city, of the ancient past, in its conflicted present, and for the biblical future."

(from For evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy, not politics)
I actually run a group to support people who get scared by these stories. It's much more serious than many realize. Young children as young as 13 and adults without a good background in physics, astronomy, and in this case theology, get really scared. It came to a head recently with David Meade's false prophecy that the world would end on Sept 23 2017 which was featured in the Daily Express and because the Daily Express is for some reason strongly favoured by Google News it filled Google news search results for weeks if you searched for topics such as "Planet X". His was a mix of alleged theology and pseudo science, claiming that the Bible predicted that a planet 'Nibiru' would fly closely past Earth at some point as a result of a 'sign' in the sky on Sept 23 as a result of a bizarre interpretation of Rev. 12 as astrology (which of course the Bible warns against - and there is no mention of any particular planet anywhere in the Bible or any constellation of the Zodiac). He falsely prophesied the rapture itself to happen some time in October. The sensationalist press simplified this to the world ending on Sept 23. So - that was just awful - I was getting so many PM's during the last week before Sept 23 that I gave up work for that week. Some were vomiting in fear of this (vomiting is a common side effect of extreme fear), and a couple of those in touch with me were in hospital receiving saline drips at the time of sept 23 only because of the effects of their fear of the world ending - so that they couldn't eat or sleep, tried to but couldn't. I still spend much of my time answering PM's from people who are scared that the world is about to end, sometimes suicidal, and sometimes vomiting from fear. They have help from doctors and therapists but it is not enough for them.
Many felt suicidal and some actually contemplating suicide. They want to kill themselves to get rid of their fear of the world ending - it's kind of paradoxical but it's very real for them. I continue to get suicidal PM's on the topic. Although only a small fraction of young people who contemplate suicide actually attempt it and only a tiny fraction of those who try actually succeed (older people are muchj more successful if they try) I think it's entirely possible that some may have killed themselves over such stories because there must be thousands who got scared given the number who were able to find me and send me PM's. And it has severe repercussions on their life - frequent panic attacks, often they are afraid to leave their home, take time off work because of their fear and so on. It impacts on them for months or years - and children too, as young as 13 and probably much younger as that's the minimum age on Facebook, still at school, with this extreme fear of the world ending. Many not Christian or only the vaguest ideas of Christianity as this extends far beyond the Bible belt and we have members of our Doomsday Debunked facebook group from many countries world wide who see it in Google News and get scared.
This is why I am very keen to make sure the Wikipedia articles on theology are accurate and especially articles such as this one to make it clear that most Christians do not think in terms of a rapture at all. Those who contact me from the Bible belt in the US often don't know of any Christians who do not subscribe to this doctrine with their relatives, friends, all believing it. Of course for some then it's a source of comfort and solace, and they feel secure that God's plan is unfolding and they want to help others to develop a similar faith. But for others the whole thing is naturally scary for them. They feel they have to either believe this or stop being Christian. And many who are not Christian, still are scared, afraid of what they think will happen when the rapture comes, even though they do not call themselves Christian any more - they have stopped calling themselves Christian, but still believe in the rapture.
So - the authors of the article may well have believed themselves that this is what most Christians believe and this may have been the reason it is written as if this is a central and essential Christian doctrine. I agree with you - I think it is just neutral NPOV editing to edit the article to make it clear that most Christians do not have this view in the introduction - while of course presenting their views clearly as what they are. Robert Walker (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not alone in having this concern, but you've made me realize that its even more problematic than I thought. I'd be far more accepting of rapture theology if there wasn't the "bring on the end of the world" political agenda, not to mention the stress it puts on certain followers (which I wasn't aware of). I didn't realize that the it has caused that kind of psychological pain to some of its own believers. Sadly, most people from traditions outside of rapture churches are largely unaware of its existence and the whole agenda behind it—just as rapturists are generally unaware that most Christians have other views based on longer theological reflection (over the course of centuries). I believe that the Catholic/Orhodox dealt with some of the early millennial eschatological issues during the first several councils. But, I think there is a monumental ecumenical task at hand here, and nobody is talking about it. I'd imagine that in Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox ecumenical discussions with evangelicals the matter is never brought up, which is sad. It needs to be discussed at high levels. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I come at it with another perspective, hadn't thought of the ecumenical angle. I wonder if there is anything can be done by helping Christians in these Bible belt areas who are scared by the prophecies to realize that it's not supported by the main Christian traditions. I do find that the people I talk to via PM's from these regions do find it reassuring and helpful to know they are not alone in doubting the rapture interpretations of the Bible, and gives them more confidence in themselves. Also naive people worldwide - in the UK then I get people from here also PM me who are scared that the world is about to end - and it's not even part of our main Christian traditions - this idea of a rapture. It's the UK tabloids that promote it most of all - but they are doing it cynically, there is no way that the journalists actually can believe what they write in those articles. They are the same papers that have articles about alien tripods invading Russian cities, and the famous "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". So part is educating people in other countries too that this is not part of their Christian tradition.
These prophecies have been here all along but I think it's come to a head recently with the YouTube channels - preachers like Paul Bagley for instance. He has a YouTube channel where he constantly tells everyone that the world is going to end next week or month, and he gets probably thousands of dollars a year of ad revenue from it. Then there are the red top tabloids in the UK - they play a much larger role than they used to, with a world wide presence, because Google News strongly favours them.
This is about rapture more generally rather than just the Jerusalem prophecy. If you search for 'Planet X' for instance then often nearly the entire first page and sometimes all 10 results in the first page of a Google search under the News tab will be sensationalist stories from the red top tabloids saying the world is about to end due to a flyby of a planet which of course doesn't exist, called 'Nibiru'. There's nothing particularly Christian about this idea. It's an invention of a maverick Sumerian scholar -originally it referred to a bright star or planet at the equinoxes usually Venus, Jupiter or one of the brightest stars in the sky depending on which was brightest. But he claimed they were talking about an extra planet that did a flyby of Earth back then. Nancy Lieder then took his idea and turned it into a prediction of the world ending in 2003, then when nothing happened, 2008, 2012 and other dates.
There's no Bible reference yet at all. But later some of the false prophets on YouTube and elsewhere started to claim this was prophesied in the Bible, even though the Bible never mentions any planets by name and they didn't know back then that Earth was a planet. That was a central point in David Meade's false Sept 23 prophecy. He tied together ideas of the rapture with this mythical planet 'Nibiru'. And - the thing is there's a whole community of Christians who are really keen for the world to end as soon as possible - and they will jump on any false prophecy of the world ending. And every time a date fails, they then jump on the next one. E.g. comment here, asked what happens if the prophecy fails, the response was that "If it doens't happen we move to the next possible date"
They are really keen on it. For instance comment on this video "lets hope we're raptured out of here on Dec.17th,now wouldn't that make a nice Christmas present!"
I think these video comments from Christians who are hoping that every new false prophet's date will be the end of the world - and the uploaders who upload the videos - are mainly from non denominational churches in southern US - as I haven't yet found any denomination that sets dates (do say if you know of one). But probably few Christians outside of these areas are aware of this, as you say. Meanwhile from my conversations via PM, few within those regions have much awareness that there are other ways to interpret the Bible. I mean the average person who was brought up Christian and just accepts what they were taught as their religion doesn't know this. And though many do find it a source of comfort, this belief in Jesus appearing in the clouds in the near future and themselves raptured up to heaven in their physical bodies - others as I said find it very scary and even get suicidal as a result. Including people in the UK and other countries who have no support from their community as the rapture tradition is not even native to our country. That's basically the situation we face. Robert Walker (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind those crazies so much if they'd just keep it more or less to themselves, but I'm concerned to the degree that they are now influencing middle east foreign policy in a dangerous way. And, I can't be too unsure that some of those ministers might not have influenced Trump's withdrawal form the Paris Accords as well. Admittedly, I have no proof of that, but after all, what's the use of helping the environment and saving the planet if someone wants to speed up the onset of the Rapture? Wouldn't global warming be just the solution! I have a hunch that a bunch these people are also climate change deniers. They actually don't really deny it——they know it's happening and that the scientists are right——but they don't want to admit it, because it would interfere with their plan. What do you think about that?!? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay first on Jersualem - they managed to secure a campaign pledge from Trump which he has fulfilled. But he is not trying to make the prophecy come about - he may not even know much about it. All he is doing is fulfilling a pledge that he knows will please his core base. It's not part of any overall strategy. He made that clear in his speech[6]

“In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”

“The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.”

“In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif.”

“Above all, our greatest hope is for peace, the universal yearning in every human soul. With today's action, I reaffirm my administration's longstanding commitment to a future of peace and security for the region>.”

There bear in mind that the prophecy is for war in the middle East which becomes global and for building of a Jewish temple on Temple Mount. I don't see Trump as a likely person to deliberately engineer a war in the middle East to attempt to bring about a prophecy of the world ending. Others also say he is the Anti Christ, which is part of the prophecy, but they said that of Obama too - and there is not the slightest sign or likelihood that he is going to attempt to get others to worship him :). So - yes they did succeed in getting him to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but I think it's a one off gesture on his part to fulfil a campaign pledge and no more - not likely to lead any further. And I don't see it as likely that they could influence politicians to try to fulfill any more of the "prophecy".

I think you are right that many of them would be in support of Trump leaving the Paris agreement but I think that's a separate thing. At least, for what it's worth, I haven't seen climate change linked to the rapture doctrine yet in the stories people bring to me to debunk or get scared about. They send me stories to debunk by maverick scientists about climate change, but so far, nothing about rapture linked to climate change.

I suppose though that as you say this idea of a near future rapture might lead to short term thinking, the idea that what happens to our Earth in the time of our generations children and grand children just don't matter, as you say - on the other hand people are often not very consistent in their thinking, we aren't like robots in that way.

A lot of Americans do believe in a near future second coming of Jesus, with 41% saying it definitely or probably will happen before 2050 according to one survey [7], on the other hand 80% are optimistic about the long term future for themselves and their family[8].

So how do you read that? . So - that's just one survey, but I think it suggests that the idea of a near future rapture probably does have a fair amount of political effect in the US. However, maybe there is some separation in their thinking between religious ideas and practical ideas, answering differently if asked about the future of the economy, or if asked if they believe in a return of Jesus??

My main concern is the effect that their statements have on the scared and suicidal people. To give an idea of how much they are affected, here is "Nerd with Attitude" - one of the debunkers, reading out a message from one of our members in a YouTube video, with his permission[9]. They are affected by pseudo science and fake and exaggerated science as well as the rapture doctrine, but the rapture doctrine is a major part of it.

At any rate the main thing we can do in Wikipedia is just to make sure the articles on theology here accurately represent the true situation, to present the rapture doctrine accurately, but in its proper context. If we present it clearly as not a central theological doctrine to all Chrisians but rather a doctrine for some particular groups mainly in Southern US, then that will help. Robert Walker (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Just because we believe that rapture theory can be potentially dangerous in both politics and individual people's lives, we can still be objective in our edits. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes exactly! I think that perhaps we have been digreessing here a bit from the primary purpose of talk pages. Though it's obvious from other talk pages that a fair bit of leeway is allowed in practice. WP:OWNTALK

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier."

It's fine from my point of view :). But I have been disciplined for things that I thought were not a problem - as a result of some wikipedia guidelines being interpreted far more strictly than I expected. So, I agree with the guideline in principle, I don't really see how going off on interesting tangents that are still directly related to the rapture topic is likely to violate this talk page guideline, and nobody is warning me. But I think it does no harm to be careful to stay well within the guidelines in what is now quite a long conversation. If you want to continue it you can just friend me on Facebook Robert Walker or message me on my Quora profile. I'm enjoying this conversation! Robert Walker (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I do not have a Facebook account and have never networked there (I admit, I'm living in a cave). But, I did enjoy the conversation. One of these days, I'll have to get into doing Facebook! Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I should have said you can also email me. I have a public email address, have had for years as a software developer, GMail seems to filter the spam fine and not the messages that are genuine. It's support@robertinventor.com. I think myself that Wikipedia is a bit behind the times to not permit some form of social networking on the site - which could be private or a separate site integrated with it in some way but separated so that the social messaging and networking doesn't get in the way of conversations about the article content. I think it's because it was originally developed at a time when online social networking was rare. Nowadays it is expected for any kind of collaborative activity. E.g. Quora, collaborative Q/A site has built in social messaging which members do in private but online as part of the platform.
There is a proposal to make a "Wiki Social" on meta: m:WikiSocial. I think something like that but integrated closely to wikipedia so we can just say "lets continue this conversation on Wiki Social" would be great. I just posted a support vote there making that suggestion though there would be issues with close integration of a social media site with wikipedia that would have to be worked through. Robert Walker (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

David Meade draft[edit]

Hi @Robertinventor: I created a draft about false prophet David Meade here. Would you like to help me with the draft I made about him? LovelyGirl7 talk 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @LovelyGirl7:, we could give it a go, he does already have a mention in this article: Nibiru_cataclysm#2017_revival. The thing is whether he fits the notability criterion for a separate article. I think he would count as someone notable for one event - well it was drawn out over several months but basically his end of times prophecies centered around 23rd September 2017 and the following months. He has several previous prophecies and is continuing to make future prophecies but that's the one that got the attention of the media. See WP:1E. He did get enough attention for the Washington Post to write an article about him rather than the event The man whose biblical doomsday claim has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23
It's hard to find that much about him because he writes under a pseudonym (says so himself). The article can use the Washington Post article as main source + I have found out a bit more about him which I wrote up in this article [10] - not to use that as a source, but it gives details of his two previous books and links to sources for them so we could use that. So - well we could give it a go and see if it is accepted, explaining our reasons why we think he may be notable enough for inclusion. Worst that happens is that the decision is made to delete it or not approve it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: He's nothing more than a pen name and a idiot. Simple. As for the article, I have it here. He is also known for his October nonsense as well than just September 23rd. When Trump and Pence being levitated, Earth being split in 2 poles, and Obama being president for the third time. I mentioned that stuff in the article as well. I did found out that he went to the University of Louisville as well [11] and I think it might be worth mentioning it in the article. Also, is David Meade a christian or catholic? Several articles, like Washinigton Post and Daily Express says he's a christian since they always mention "Christian Numerologists", and I think David Meade said he was raised by catholics and that he's a catholic. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@LovelyGirl7: Okay fine. I've done an update of that article. Yes he says he is catholic and one of the sources said so.
I've removed mention of myself including my blog on Quora and my Science 2.0 blog as I am not sure if they would count as reliable sources in Wikipedia - I have a "Conflict of Interest" anyway, someone else would need to assess if they are. Although Science 2.0 is reasonably high reputation and is cited sometimes here, I feel it is a bit of a gray area. Authors on Science 2.0 can write whatever they like with no editorial oversight, although it is closed in the sense that you do have to be accepted by Hank Campbell before you can write there. My quora blog is just a personal blog. And I don't think I'd count as notable according to the criteria of Wikipedia in this topic area.
I've also added a mention of his previous books in 2013 and 2015. Another change is that I've made it clear (with cites) that "David Meade" is a pen name and said that he "says" he studied astronomy at the University of Louisville amongst other subjects. There is no evidence he actually did and in this topic area authors often claim to have studied astronomy or to be astronomers, etc, who have no qualifications at all. I think myself as someone with a good background in astronomy that he can't possibly have studied the subject as he makes elementary mistakes that would mean you wouldn't even pass an admissions test for a course if they interviewed candidates and definitely would not pass such a course. For instance on Sept 23 he claimed that he personally saw "the sign" from his home.
This involved some planets in the morning sky, some in the evening sky, and the stars of Virgo blanked out by the sun. There is no way anyone could "see" it and to claim he did shows a profound ignorance of basic ideas of astronomy. There are many other things he says that makes it clear he never actually can have studied the subject - or at least, if he went to any classes at any stage, he didn't retain much of what he learnt. Of course that can't be put into the article, not unless we find a WP:RS (reliable source) saying so. But it's reason to make it clear it is a claim and not independently verified and so I put it as he "Says" he studied astronomy not that he actually did study astronomy. Robert Walker (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: Thank you Robert for correcting my article. Thank you. Who cares what Meade says anyways, there all nonsense. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@LovelyGirl7: Yes for sure but we have to be accurate in Wikipedia even if he is writing nonsense :). I see someone else has also been working on the article, is looking good. I'm going to copy my last comment here over to the talk page of the article and link back to this conversation. So then we can continue any more discussion of the article there where anyone interested in working on the article can read it, if we have more to say. Robert Walker (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I will. --LovelyGirl7 talk 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: I have a peer review about David Meade here if you would like to give feedback on the article. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: - oh you've done a lot more work on it now. After seeing this, I just left a comment on the talk page about his claimed qualification in astronomy - that we don't know that he really has such a qualification and can't check for a pen name and why there is reason to be skeptical about that particularly - though not sure what edit to suggest - anyway you'll see the post on the talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

talk:Nuclear holocaust[edit]

Thanks Robert Walker, although in a non-politicized world, no thanks would be needed. Being responsible for researching and then penning essentially the entirety of the nuclear winter article, sometimes as the IP editor from Ireland...I take great mirth in having just been referred to, as a "newbie" on the titular page.

Though in all seriousness, I'm glad to have readership feedback on the winter article. It is by no means a completed line of editing, as a gander at the respective talk page will telegraph. Your summary on the talk page of the holocaust article, is actually the first time I've been sure someone read and fully grasped what it was, that I was attempting to summarize and express, that the scope in which "nuclear winter" has always operated, is limited to say the least, proof by computer simulation/by computer game is a major problem in science that affects an increasing number of fields. There is nothing wrong with computer modelling per se, it's just you need to declare the boundaries and assumptions you're plugging in. Very loudly.

By the way, I also have a (potentially classified) Defense Threat Reduction Agency reference, published in 2015 that explicitly states that "nuclear winter" is not taken seriously by the US defense establishment(probably because fire modelling and plume motion has been subjected to super-computer analysis in one of the national laboratorys alongside classified studies of soot residence times following natural wildfires). I haven't uploaded this specific DTRA reference as...I'm lazy and don't want to seem like I'm deferring to authority and well I suppose, I would rather see how the public domain "science" develops. Speaking of, I haven't seen anything from Robock in a while, not since the Toba catastrophe model of severe-volcanic-cooling took a major hammering.

As you can expect by its political nature, there is usually a "new nuclear winter model" released every time some international sabre-rattling occurs. Though correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see one timed for the recent N.Korean rattling, something of a break in tradition?...so I hope (someone that can't possibly be Robock) has not continued to edit his "missing-presumed-murdered" colleague - Vladimir Alexandrov's wikipedia article, as there was an IP editor geolocated at Robock's tenured university of, Rutger's Uni doing just that.

This editing was very odd so I raised the question, is this IP user Robock? As seen on the Talk:Alan Robock page. After raising my eyebrow and writing this 1 line of a "heads up"...well, if you're interested to see just how farcical that also went. Then check out that latter talk page.

They'll try to ban you and me over "dasterdly long talk-page comments" and get everyone to focus on you and your behavior, rather than allow any cool-headed-dispassionate-editors to instead focus on the scholarly thing, to take a look at the actual quality of the references, what you are trying to communicate and if it's an impartial summary. If they have a fair point on partiality, or see some other legitimate issue, then I don't think either one of us are beyond the realm of keeping an open mind and constructively working together.

There is however, unfortunately a strain of editors here who want to make everything political, or to cheerlead some political narrative. They "must win" and have "the preceived other-side excluded from editing". It is necessary to point this out as what motivates a vast number of editors, it is an undercurrent that needs to be pointed out and for others to become aware of it. As I'm sure we've lost editors to this political monster. It's obvious from what they have tried to do, to conflate, to stretch, to intentionally mischaracterize in order to get you removed from editing, that this is perhaps the wikipedia project's greatest flaw and can in some part, explain why it is essentially an all-mens club.

Sadly with work and real-life I'll have less time here to dedicate to the project. Right now, we have snow and I'm off work ;-) So there will always be serrendipity.

keep up the good fight,

ad astra Boundarylayer (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, glad to have helped and you have done good work on the Nuclear Winter article. As to trying to prove that an ip editor is Alan Robock - that sort of thing is tricky. Because anyone could edit the articles and we just don't know who people are here. Including e.g. someone wanting to discredit him, also it is easy to think you see patterns when there are only coincidences. So I think they were right to say there is no evidence of it being him that would stand up here. But went far too far to try to topic ban you for it. However I shouldn't say much more about that as I am topic banned myself right now. One of the conditions of a topic ban broadly construed is that I can't talk about why I was banned and this is getting rather too close to it. The most I can say is a general observation which applies to many topic bans I've seen here on Wikipedia, not just me, that I think editors here on Wikipedia are often over eager to take each other to WP:ANI and to solve their editing disagreements by banning each other.
Anyway you weren't banned and that's great because you are doing good work. The people who continue to promote Nuclear Winter despite nearly all scientists saying it is impossible, and the way they use invalid arguments of seeding their models with soot high in the atmosphere without explaining how it gets there - it does seem to be politically motivated. And as I said there, I am a long term nuclear weapons disarmament advocate - but I do not support using politically motivated inaccurate science to promote Nuclear Winter no matter how much their political aims may align with my own long term views of what I think should happen long term. The science is still low quality and I think bordering on junk science. Though the paper is accurate in as far as it is an accurate of what would happen "if" you started with soot like that, it just is wrong when the author goes on to say this is what would happen in a real nuclear war without explaining those contested assumptions and without even mentioning that they are contested and controversial.
Anyway you are setting about it the right way by including all the views on the matter in wikipedia and making it clear what the arguments are. I looked at your Nuclear Winter article and I didn't see anything to add. You have done a good job! Congratulations. And - as I said there, it makes a big difference because some people get absolutely terrified by it and send me panicked PM's and have even been verging on suicide scared of a nuclear winter as a future possibility. And I'm talking here about being scared even when living in a nuclear free zone. There is no need for that at all and it is entirely due to this bordering on junk science and it is the downside of their politics. I do think it is going too far though if anyone was to suggest his work is deceptive. We have to assume he is sincere but it is puzzling that he doesn't address the controversial nature of his pre-loading and explain that most scientist would say that this part of the paper is wrong and try to justify his approach. He just seems to brush the whole question under the carpet as it were. Robert Walker (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)