User talk:Tesldact Smih

Tesldact Smih, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tesldact Smih! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Tesldact Smih, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Tesldact Smih, good luck, and have fun. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, welcome, and the reason I suggested reworking the grey alien article in draft (or sandbox) space is that any manual of style or policy-related errors might be reverted by passing editors if you worked on the article directly. Not a bad thing, but it can sometimes make for a mess of confusing edits and counter edits. Also, working in draft space would give you a chance to familiarize yourself with the subtleties of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and other policies that come into play with articles such as this one. Wikipedia editing is kind of a team effort with WP:CONSENSUS as a goal, so don't be put off by unsolicited corrections, additions, or fixes made by other editors to your work. Disagreements can usually be solved by Talk page discussion. Feel free to ask me any questions, I may not get to them ASAP but I'll do my best to answer. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you LuckyLouie for you kind words. I will think about it - but if I were to do as you suggest, the only way I would do it would be if you took down or deleted the existing page (what's the point of starting a new page while people are still amending the old one? Rather pointless). So for the moment I will still want action on the existing page to remove false attributions, false statements, etc. So please tell me what you going to do about them. Thank you LuckyLouie.Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t worry too much about changes being made to the page while you’re working on a draft, it’s not a very active article. Unfortunately there are many, many articles on Wikipedia that contain errors. Volunteer editors work in their spare time to make improvements. Most do not get too worked up when they discover WP:OR, they either fix it when they have a chance, post a comment on the article Talk page, or at an appropriate notice board to solicit assistance. The exception to this is WP:BLP articles where fast action is warranted for legal reasons, and that’s not what we are dealing with here. Since Wikipedia is not a service or a corporation, you won’t get anywhere by demanding Wikipedia (or me) take immediate action to remedy what you feel is an intolerable situation. As I said, it might be best for you to work on a draft revision of the article, especially since you appear to have time to do detailed analysis of its faults. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments LuckyLouie. Well, not exactly demanding - more in the way of pointing out the false statements and false attributions and wondering what the policy is and then making suggestions about what might be done about it. In my mind, I don’t see any valid reason for keeping any demonstrably false statements on Wikipedia pages for a moment longer than their discovery – despite your personal assessment of importance, false information is false information and should not be tolerated in any situation. Do you have any valid arguments against that principle? Believe me I am trying to get to grips with Wikipedia policy here…

…anyway, I have deleted the false statements and attributions to H. G. Wells and I am waiting to see if anyone actually responds to that deletion. I would like to then talk to whoever does respond and try and work with them in instigating change. If no-one responds, then I will just work on the original until someone does – and if anyone feels strongly enough to respond, then I will try to work with that person on resolving the issues.

Again, thank you for your input LuckyLouie, I do value and appreciate it as you are pointing me to relevant policies and guiding me on how Wikipedia actually works.

ETA: Actually, looking over my research to this point, I may have the beginnings of an article already started... Okay, I'll bite... I'll see if I can set a page up somewhere and fill it with my "article" and then invite comment... I guess... oh, I am being sucked into this... I have other things to do! Haha.Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

My initial advice for you to work in draft space was a good faith suggestion, based on your first few comments on the article Talk page. I anticipated you'd do a minor copyedit of the existing article that removed any existing WP:OR and added citations to WP:RS. I didn't expect the result, which is essentially a lengthy personal essay pushing your own original research. I've explained why we rely on secondary reliable sources, and while questioning them is acceptable, campaigning against them because they conflict with your own conclusions is not. When I advised you to use WP:RSN as a resource, the expectation was that you'd consider opinions from a variety of experienced editors, rather than see it as an opportunity to prove them wrong and push your own opinions. At this point, I'm getting the impression you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than seek WP:CONSENSUS and work within editorial WP:POLICY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I am truly sorry you feel that way LuckyLouie, but as far as I can tell, it is entirely legitimate for me to question a source as reliable or not.

I went to WP:RSN seeking advice on whether the community thought Brian Dunning was a reliable source or not. Doesn’t seem to be that much interest… but give it a bit of time please. So I am also not sure what you mean by a “variety of editors”.

I support all my claims with reliable sources. If you wish to claim my sources are not reliable, and as we cannot seem to agree on whose sources are reliable or not, then perhaps you could avail yourself of WP:RSN? I don’t know, does WP have a WP:POLICY about this? I know, yes, it does…

Tell me please, in good faith, do you truly believe Brian Dunning is a reliable source? I mean, come on, they guy is a predatory pseudosceptic. One of those people who pretty much thinks only of themselves. Someone who is constantly on the lookout for opportunities to take advantage of others. These types of people should not be elevated in public discourse as some sort of reliable source. Dunning is the precise opposite of a reliable source – a font of misinformation and disinformation about skepticism, science and the scientific method. Dunning represents everything that is wrong with our “fake news” society. You know the type surely? No empathy, narcissistic, in it for only themselves, will say or do anything to advance their own cause… If there is any time in history when we know the type, surely it is now.

Yeah, “lengthy essay”. First, if you are talking about my article – it is an article I constructed after you invited me to. When I constructed it, I had little idea of the full extent of WP guidelines. I constructed my article in good faith, using reliable sources, considering that when it came time to edit the old, then the new could easily be made WP compliant. Now, I could re-do my article to make it compliant, (perhaps someone might tell me which sources I have used that are unreliable, that would certainly help too...) but I am still working my way through what is and what is not “compliant” according to WP. So naturally I have not attempted that exercise yet. All I ask in that regard is a little patience.

Second, as you know, it is easy for people to throw out “one line” claims, that then require deconstructing to understand the underlying fallacy of logic or evidence – which explanation then becomes accused of being a “Wall of text” or “Righting great wrongs” or “bludgeoning” or any one of a seemingly endless supply of WP: SOMETHING-OR-OTHERs. So, I am learning about them all as fast as I can… I am an academically trained research scientist and well out of my comfort zone – stepping into WP for me is like stepping into an alternate universe…

I made a misstep when I went to WP:RSN. Not fully appreciating the nature of WP (the rules and guidelines are soooo bloody archaic…) I should have presented all the evidence I had up front, then just sat back and let others comment – that is, let WP do it’s job before I even thought to comment again. I apologise for that misunderstanding - a misunderstanding that I have now been disabused of. Thank you. Oh …and it is not a “campaign”… you suggested the resource… no, don’t face-palm please… what use the resource if editors cannot avail themselves on it to settle disputed claims?

I am trying Lucky Louie, really I am, to work within WP guidelines. Forgive my seeming obtuseness and missteps. At least you get to re-familiarise yourself with all those “WP:”s. Haha. But good for me too. I am trying to work in good faith. Forgive me if I seem to push the boundaries in exploring the limits of what is possible and what is not - but it is just that, an exploration, not driven by any particular agenda - I do hope you can understand that. One can only truly understand all those WP guidelines if one experiences how they operate in the wild…

…and now look... Suddenly, this is an essay! Ha. Sorry about that. Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tesldact Smih. In general, I think that you have a point about Dunning, but as a head's up WP:BLP applies everywhere, including when discussing people on talk pages. It is fine to mention that someone is convicted of fraud, but some of your comments are going well beyond that. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby! You have put a smile on my face. Another “WP:” for me. Haha. But yes, naturally, you are correct. My grandmother used to say "If you haven't a kind word to say about someone, don't say it." But sometimes...ha. But I appreciate the heads up Bilby and I will certainly be more careful and considered in future. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Important message

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

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

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

—PaleoNeonate – 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s a nifty little device (I think I need to learn a little more than basic html. haha).

Sure, pseudoscience I am very interested in, but “fringe science”, you can have on your own. I mean, the scientific method is (in the ideal at least) blind to value judgements such as that. I am strictly a science guy – the history and philosophy of science I know - and science fears to tread nowhere. Whenever I come across an example of the scientific method being corrupted by pseudoscience and pseudoskeptisism, then little alarm bells start ringing for me and my interest is piqued. I start asking questions why. Then I do the research. Then I look to see what I have (as in my “article”). Then, if I choose to publish, I look to see what requirements any particular publisher might have and adapt my “research” article to conform. Presently, as you know, I am looking to see the publication requirements of WP – and they seem rather onerously and rigorously applied in this area of research. But, as you point out, that may be necessary and I do not begrudge it.

So thank you PaleoNeonate, I will certainly bear the importance of your message in mind. Tesldact Smih (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RSN

I have visited the thread again and noticed the many long posts, hence I suggest WP:BLUDGEON even though it is only an essay. On Wikipedia clear short posts are valued versus long posts and repetitive arguments (you can compare to the participation of most editors there). RSN archives are searchable and also serve as quick reference. But this is also valid at RFCs and deletion discussions. In this case it's not a formal RFC that requires closure, but when that happens, an uninvolved experienced editor is expected to evaluate consensus not by vote count or firehosed result, but by the value of the arguments in relation to policy... You probably get the idea, —PaleoNeonate – 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I went into it completely inexperienced and unprepared and I do take on board the points you make. I have learned some valuable lessons and if I had my time over I would approach it in an entirely different manner. Dunning is about as reliable as a broken clock, he is correct in his opinions by accident, rather than by design (I assume you know the type of character he is very well). But, I also now realise it is even pointless me saying that to you. haha

Yes indeed, assessed by the value of the argument... It does however seem a rather lopsided debate where one side simply throws out unsupported "one-liner" claims, as if they were some sort of fundamental truth, while requiring me to support every word with a reliable reference... if only others operated as you say , we would all get along much better I am sure - but I guess we are all human after all (... but I can only speak for myself you understand - and I am not saying I am perfect, of course, I am very flawed, but at least I try to recognise and correct those tendencies within me. I am flawed, but try not to be. haha).

Just a point on "bludgeoning". For example, to prove 5Q5's references and Dunning are lying requires that I present every description Betty and Barney Hill made about their aliens - irrefutably demonstrating the lie. And indeed, I have done that. But instead of noticing that Dunning and the other references must therefore be lying (for they cannot claim ignorance if they are the expert sources they are held out to be), what people actually noted was simply a "wall of text" or "bludgeonining", etc. If, as you contend correctly that debates should be settled on the value of the argument, then such practices act to maintain the (often erroneous) status quo. I have yet to decide whether WP has the balance right on that score... a difficult one to be sure.

Anyway, I have actually sided with Guy Macron and recommended closure. I don't see much point in carrying on. But thank you for your advice, I do note and appreciate it. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning discussions, casting aspersions, and personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. As I posted here, you have bludgeoned a discussion, cast aspersions against editors acting in good faith, and made personal attacks against an experienced, good-faith editor who has gone far out of their way to help you. Such violations of conduct policy have to stop. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

""far" out" ...man. Vexatious much? And perhaps just an eensy weensy bit dictatorial (well, a lot dictatorial, but who's counting hey)? ...and haven't I have told you a million times never to exaggerate (haha)? But really, the things you mention about bludgeoning etc. are past and gone - all that has been raised and noted by me, as I (an inexperienced editor) came to grips with the archaic and convoluted nature of WP guidelines. Done and dusted I think I the appropriate term. But I do take your broader point, it does seem that truth is no defence in WP land and I will definitely be more mindful of it in the future.

However, please do tell me, what is your interest in the grey alien article? Surely you cannot be supporting an article that is in breach of WP guidelines? And if you are supporting it, can you please state your reasoning - that would be most helpful I assure you. If however you are not supporting the article (as it stands), then can you please tell me what practical steps you have taken to improve the article? That also would be most useful. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your "Vexatious much? And perhaps just an eensy weensy bit dictatorial" above was clearly out of line. I will be watching your behavior, and the very next time you fail to treat other Wikipedia editors with respect and honor we will end up at WP:ANI discussing whether we should block you from editing for your behavior.

I have never read or edited our Grey alien article, but I will do so this week, please don't ask me about that topic until I examine the evidence and make my first edit on that page. At this point I have no idea whether you are a person with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality who is completely right about Wikipedia content or a person with a battleground mentality who is completely wrong about Wikipedia content, but you are without a doubt a person with a battleground mentality, and if your behavior does not improve immediate you are likely to find yourself unable to discuss the topic because of a block or topic ban. This would be a Bad Thing if it turns out that you are right.

My advice is that you focus on article content and sources, and stop talking about other Wikipedia editors altogether. There will be no further warnings from me. Please take care when composing your reply; I strongly suggest that you use no second person pronouns in your reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s out of line? Okay, sure, duly noted, but a couple of genuine questions then. Would it have been out of line if I had said I believe you are being vexatious and I don’t appreciate the dictatorial tone”? And sorry, but what is "battleground mentality"? I mean, you use it as if it were a formal term within WP... It seems kinda important then that I clarify that, given your warning. Seriously, I do not intentionally breach WP guidelines and If I know about them, then I can steer clear. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get where "battleground mentality" comes from. You mean that I tend to respond to every editor who responds to me, where in fact some responses should be left well alone and that I should be more judicious in choosing who and how to respond. Okay, sure, noted. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Not going to answer any questions or engage in any debate. My advice will not change: focus on article content and sources, and stop talking about other Wikipedia editors altogether. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way Guy. However, I did not ask for you to change your advice. Indeed, I specifically noted it. I merely assumed you could help clarify your warning for me. I was obviously mistaken in that apprehension. Apologies. But if you will not answer my questions concerning a warning that you imposed, is there another editor you would recommend I seek advice from?

You also indicated you would examine the evidence on the grey alien page. You will be pleased to note I have made your task a little easier by posting a proposed change to remove some false statements, as identified by the evidence I posted in that section on the talk page. I would appreciate your comments in that regard. Thank you Guy.Tesldact Smih (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you JoJo Anthrax.

I just wanted to add a note that I would like to advocate for you -- I generally feel that sanctions are a bit too free and more vigorous debate on Wikipedia should be allowed -- but you're making it very difficult. It really is possible to advocate your positions without lashing out personally. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban from UFO

Per this discussion, which I closed in my role of an uninvolved administrator, you are now topic-banned from everything related to UFO for an indefinite duration of time. This means you may not edit articles related to UFO and their talk pages. You may also not mention UFO-related topics in your edits anywhere in Wikipedia. The topic ban can be lifter by the community, for which you would need to leave a request at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I would strongly recommend against doing this in the first six months: The chances that a topic ban would be lifted is zero, and you can only harm yourself by putting an early request. The community will want to see long-term unproblematic editing in other areas.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tesldact, I know we were at odds at Talk:Grey alien, but if you need help understanding what this topic ban means, why you were topic banned, or what you can do to get this topic ban lifted, you can ping me by typing {{ping|MjolnirPants}} here on your userpage (Note, copy this from the reading pane, not from the editing pane). I'd much rather see you learn to become a productive editor than see you stop editing entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous offer. However, I have come to the conclusion that I would not be a good fit for Wikipedia and so must respectfully decline. If I do wish to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, I will be mindful of the lessons that I have learned. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

We of course all keep learning. More than a decade ago, I believed incredible things and I also attempted to make WP reflect my views in some articles. While it didn't result in a topic ban, the IP address I used received warnings and I was probably close to receiving a first block. At first my edits were unsourced, then they were improperly sourced and obvious motivated synthesis. It's always a problem, but the encyclopedia's general quality was also lower back then. In any case, the topic ban allows you to edit in other areas and you're welcome to when you feel like it. The initial experience might help as some basics were acquired, your graceful response above seems promising for collaboration and you obviously have writing skills. —PaleoNeonate – 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I would echo the above. I would very much like to see you become a productive editor in other areas. If I were to see six months of editing without personal attacks and bludeoning I would support a request to have your topic ban lifted. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)