User talk:ජපස

no trouts

...but I don't want the bludgeoning simply transferred to my talk. The editors at the article should treat that as any other edit request from someone with a COI. valereee (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do! Sorry about mistreating your talkpage. jps (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. It wasn't that I didn't want it on my talk in particular but that I didn't think it needed to be done anywhwere. I just think the editor needs to go do something else. The article needs a synopsis, but they don't seem to be able to live with a collaborative effort on it. valereee (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Cosmology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cosmology, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:)

Special:Diff/1068491098. And comments welcome at its talk page if you detect obvious problems or omissions... —PaleoNeonate – 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Reminds me of stuff I had done years ago. I think it's buried somewhere in the history of the userpage. Cheers! jps (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice, I found it, —PaleoNeonate – 15:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, ජපස. You have new messages at Talk:TRAPPIST-1.
Message added 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: The Cosmic Serpent

I reverted your deletions from The Cosmic Serpent because your rationale for removing the material makes no sense. A crazy as Narby sounds, your edit makes it seem like you didn't even review what you were deleting, as the cited material you removed criticizes Narby. Further, the material adheres to various guidelines pertaining to synopses for non-fiction articles. You cited WP:REDFLAG which makes no sense for two reasons: one, the synopsis is written within the context of the author's stated claims, and two, biophysicist Jacques Dubochet debunks Narby's assertions within the same section, fulfilling the remit of REDFLAG. Again, it really sounds like you aren't reading what you are editing. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Am I in an alternate universe here? I would love to see Jacques Dubochet's debunking, but the reference link was to this cotton-mouthed review from the Guardian. It doesn't actually support the prose placed and, to the extent that it does, it is indeed a WP:REDFLAG as Jay Griffiths isn't exactly qualified to opine on whether shamans have scientific knowledge of molecular biology. It's possible that there were issues at some point back in the history of the article where reliable sources were removed, but Dubochet is nowhere mentioned in that source. I think the problem is that you assumed that the article was in a previous state. jps (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You may want to consult how we write synopses for non-fiction articles. The stub as it is follows those rules. While you and I might agree that Narby has clearly fallen into a drug-induced state of pareidolia and patternicity, which is a very common psychological state in the psychedelic community, you must also agree that this altered state of consciousness is no different than a religious adherent who writes a crazy book about perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena, or a political conspiracy theorist who makes a crazy fake documentary film like 2000 Mules. Don't confuse the map with the territory. We can write about these works without also lending them credence, and we don't outright delete the material or the articles because they make crazy claims. I am unaware of any article about Narby on Wikipedia that asserts the veracity of his claims. Instead, the material asserts what he says and cites his detractors like Dubochet et al. Jay Griffiths has no bearing on this at all, and I'm confused why you keep bringing this up. I think it's perfectly acceptable to make it clear that Narby isn't adhering to established science, which was the purpose of Dubochet, which was removed. If more can be added, great. I think we may be talking past each other. Griffiths isn't being used to support Narby, it's been used to cite Narby. I think that's the part you are missing. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I'm confused That makes two of us. Consider your diff which kicked off this conversation. Can you see that you (re-)introduced two sources? One was Jay Griffiths and other was Narby's follow-up book. I also don't understand your distinction between "supporting Narby" and "citing Narby" vis-a-vis Jay Griffiths. jps (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is really simple and there should be no disagreement: you removed the entire synopsis section, including Griffiths, which summarizes Narby's book thesis (it is not used to cite Griffiths' personal opinion as you claim); and you removed Dubochet, who criticizes Narby's failure to test his theory. Let me repeat myself: you removed the statement "The book argue[s] that [the] modern scientific understandings of DNA have been known to indigenous people for thousands of years and learned by shamans through ritual." This is part of Narby's extraordinary claim. Griffiths is cited not for his opinion, but to source Narby. You also removed the material criticizing Narby: "Jacques Dubochet criticized Narby for not testing his hypothesis". And for another look, here is my original stub. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You claim that Griffiths is reliable for a summary of Narby's thesis. I categorically disagree. This would be rather as if we took a shroudy's word for the synopsis of a book about a claim Roman Empire provenance for that mediaeval fake. It's just not a very reliable source for establishing what if anything is a worthy synopsis of the book. Further, do you admit that the source I removed was not to Dubochet?

Maybe you are concerned that the text in question was okay and that the sources could be improved. But we are under no obligation to keep text that is uncited or poorly supported at Wikipedia. If you have better sources, by all means let me know, but right now the article is being sourced to just about the most credulous that I can imagine. And, what's worse, I don't think we can use Narby as a source for Dubochet's criticism. Do you?

jps (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Further, do you admit that the source I removed was not to Dubochet? You clearly removed Dubochet in this diff. I can't respond to your other comments because they make no sense. Either there is a language barrier or you honestly don't understand anything I've said. I'm not attached to the articles in question, and I would seriously recommend redirecting them to their parent temporarily. However, you are doing an endrun around the current discussion and that's why I reverted. How about letting the discussion play out? Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

One last time to see if you will get it: The citation on that text was to a book by Narby. It was not a source by Dubochet and I cannot for the life of me find the claimed citation (Dubochet 1997) that appears in Narby's book. So what Wikipedia is doing is quoting Narby quoting Dubochet for criticism. This is not how it's supposed to work. The rest of the argument that we shouldn't edit/improve articles while they are under AfD is one that I think is roundly rejected by deletion policy. jps (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Trying to figure out what is going on here, I think that the Dubochet criticism that Narby is quoting might be found in this French-language book: [1]. However, I cannot confirm that as I do not have the book and no libraries near me have it. Can you confirm this? If so, that would be a good source for criticism, but I would appreciate not relying on Narby's translation as, at a minimum, this would be a slight conflict of interest, I'd argue. jps (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I will ping @Odysseus1479: but he hasn’t been active since late 2021. Odysseus1479 has previously helped me find and translate French works for various articles. I will also attempt to look as well. Thanks for the tip. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I imagine that if we can locate this work, it is liable to be very enlightening one way or another. jps (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, @Viriditas! I’ll just say that my general laziness is punctuated by periods of low morale. Glad to help, anyway: although I’m not particularly good at finding things I’ll have a go at translating or summarizing whatever can be found. From a cursory survey following the above links I gather that the immediate issue is of our reporting criticism based on the subject’s own writing. I agree with jps that it’s a bad look, even where it’s not obviously a straw-man or otherwise self-serving account. (Presumably Narby would be describing Dubochet’s criticism by way of a preamble to his own rebuttal.)

Regarding DNA Before the Sovereign, it does look promising as the source. A few observations:

• I don’t suppose I can materially improve on a machine-translation of the blurb, but it’s more of a teaser than an abstract, anyway. The “debate” might be a collection of battling essays, a transcript of a moderated dialogue, or anything in between, and it’s unclear what role Kiefer actually plays as “arbitrator”: judge, framer/commentator, referee, facilitator or some combination thereof? (Not that that’s particularly relevant to what Dubochet says there.)
• “Not testing his hypothesis” is on the vague side for searchability, and the IA link doesn’t appear to host the Narby source any more, so I can’t tell how specific or detailed his description is there. The German edition of this book does appear to be searchable at Google Books, however, if you can recruit a German-speaker—then again snippet-views often fail to provide sufficient context to be properly understood, and the most likely search-terms may occur passim.

  P.S. The Ascent review cited at Intelligence in Nature contains what appears to be a quotation from Dubochet about CS: “blindly charging down the wrong path”. Translating that to German might score a hit. Then again it’s uncited, so for all we know it could be Narby’s description again.—04:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• I’m nowhere near either of the two libraries WorldCat shows, but it can be purchased (& shipped here) for only about US$15. It would also take some time & effort to read through—I’m a good order of magnitude slower reading French than English—but I expect that would be the best way to get a proper grasp of the debaters’ positions. OTOH it appears quite short, and from the German ToC I gather the scientific issues (as opposed to ethics & policy) are mostly covered in the first few chapters.

Those are my initial thoughts, anyway. Sorry for the delayed response.—Odysseus1479 04:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Input requested

Please see my comments at Talk:Sun#Formation_prose_structure concerning the FA prose in the formation subsection. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Dude, just wanted to thank you again for one of the best explanations I’ve ever read. Is it okay if I bug you now and then for future help? Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course! No problem. jps (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. I was looking for information on triggered star formation (TSF), in the context of the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Wikipedia has nothing except for a few sentences. There’s a recent paper that mentions a bit about it. I realize we have a star formation article, but I don’t think TSF is the focus. There’s also many theories that can be folded into a general article on TSF. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It is outside my area of expertise to know whether a separate article on triggered star formation is worthwhile. Certainly a section in the star formation article makes sense, in my rough understanding. Maybe that's a good place to start and then spinout? jps (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

So how to approach this? I respect the OpenStax team for doing a pretty good job of summarizing at an appropriate level the state-of-the-art understanding of astronomy. They just updated with 2e, so we could start by seeing the differences in emphasis or character between our star formation article and their chapter. jps (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I like this approach. In a related endeavor, I was reading off-Wiki about stellar jets and their role in star formation, only to find that Wikipedia’s treatment of the subject, which strangely appears in an article titled astrophysical jets, differs greatly with how others treat the subject. In a little bit of good news, I really enjoyed reading Barnard 68. It has engaging and informative prose that keeps the reader interested. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In grad school you often have one or two classes on jets in your plasma and fluids class or something. I may even have had a hand in shoehorning a lot of stuff into the astrophysical jets articles some 15 years ago or so. In any case, most physical models for producing jets scale rather nicely, and so they're often all lumped into one like this. Compare accretion disk. jps (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Related question: I couldn’t help notice multiple off-wiki sources constantly talking about how "inefficient" stellar jets are, to the point that they were boggled by the lack of efficiency. Why is this such a concern? Does this imply that they are fundamentally missing something about how stellar jets function if they perceive a wasted or useless process? For analogy in another discipline, would this be like the previous understanding of "junk DNA" in biology as a placeholder for not understanding its function? Per your link to accretion disk, that article says, "Jets are an efficient way for the star-disk system to shed angular momentum without losing too much mass”, but that statement is not true for stellar jets at the beginning of the formation of a star. Per Openstax, "Studies of Orion and other star-forming regions show that star formation is not a very efficient process. In the region of the Orion Nebula, about 1% of the material in the cloud has been turned into stars. That is why we still see a substantial amount of gas and dust near the Trapezium stars. The leftover material is eventually heated, either by the radiation and winds from the hot stars that form or by explosions of the most massive stars". If memory serves, a lot of this material comes from stellar jets. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time discussion of efficiency is referring to the efficiency of star formation which is to say the efficiency of carrying angular momentum away from a system and the chances of creating a star. One of the big outstanding mysteries in astrophysical modeling is how you get from cloud to star. Under certain assumptions about the process you form way too many stars. Under other assumptions, it's basically impossible. Getting the efficiency of star formation just right would explain the number, size distribution, and distances between stars, for example. jps (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. The models in the literature that I’m looking at say there should be more stars based on the numbers, but there aren’t, so the models aren’t accurately predicting star formation. Is this correct? Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be. There are lots of "quenching" mechanisms that people invoke but so far no one knows what the right answer is. jps (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi ජපස, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

HB

What in the world is driving this? Even claiming that an in-depth investigation is an opinion piece. FTN? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is largely fall out from the Guerrilla Skeptic Arbcom case. One side learned the wrong lessons from that. jps (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dammit, I was named in that case, and I still dunno what you are on about!!. - Roxy the English speaking dog 18:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to get all philosophical or anything, but Wikipedia has cultivated a culture that looks at policies as though they are gifts from god. I understand why WP:BLP is as stringent as it is. There was a time when Wikipedia was a literal defamation engine. But we've moved well past that era and there are nuances that were not captured when the policy was being formulated which have come to the fore. There is a culture here that it's okay to basically be a WP:JERK here at Wikipedia as long as it is in the service of keeping BLP sourcing to a "high level". The problem is, the editorial judgement of what makes a source "high level" is always contextual. And here we are. jps (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to talk[2] jps. Don't worry, I didn't think you were accusing me of being a member of GSoW, I accurately interpreted what you meant to say. I've explained my side of things as I see them on Roxy's page[3] and if you (and perhaps @Doug Weller:) would share your perspective I think that could be really helpful for all of us. Also open to any questions you still have about me or why I made certain edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I figured something like that had happened, but your actions were so brazen that it was really annoying for me to go through and try to undo so much of what you did (in part because bots helpfully ran after you). The effect of what you ended up doing was to shift a number of articles towards a state that basically removed major criticism. There is a party here at WP which would absolutely rejoice at this action and it isn't your group -- it's one that has been silently rubbing their hands together at the prospect of the regulars falling over themselves unable to handle the policies that had allowed for contextualization of fringe.

The problem really is that the obsession with declaring a certain source "reliable or not" as though it is a binary and not contextual as well as the generally laudable approach to be overly cautious with BLPs has driven us to be absolutely pedantic when it comes to how to write certain things here at Wikipedia. If I was going to write a textbook on UFOs (and I actually am doing that, truth be told), Colavito's work would feature as one of the better sources on the topic. This includes his blog which is flippant but accurate when it comes to this subject.

So that's what I see. The pendulum has swung a bit in an overcorrected direction of stringent sources. I'd be okay with that if it was accompanied by a removal of content that is dubiously sourced. But just removing Colavito from articles about wack-a-doodle ideas and not removing a lot of the ideas themselves just brings back awful memories of the bad old days. And the same patterns play out because while the motivations and interests have change, the software is basically as clunky and as conflict-inducing as it has ever been.

So no hard feelings, at all. I hope you can understand a bit where some of us old-timers are coming from here. And I am glad it didn't devolve into edit warring.

jps (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually am doing that I'll line up to purchase a copy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You won't have to if it works out! I'm writing it using grants and intend it to be OpenSource when it is finished. I guess a little WP-philosophy has rubbed off on me. jps (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd honestly forgotten that pseudoscience/skepticism was the "hottest" of the hot topics, next time I'l most certainly bring any skeptical source in question to RSN first so as not to trigger any old memories. We disagree on whether the ends justify the means in terms of using sources that don't meet our standards but I don't think we disagree on the rational response to any of the underlying topics. You do good work, next time just keep the WikiPTSD under control and start a conversation instead of going to 11 immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, if we're swapping advice here (and I freely admit that I do tend to overreact because of WikiPTSD), a quick note in the thread that you intended to go through and remove all references to Colavito's blog would have been just as brazen but would not have caused me to go to 11. Discussion is always preferable to articlespace action when it comes to something like this, I think. I don't in principle object to removing that blog where there are other better sources or where it doesn't add anything. I guess if you pressed me, I wouldn't necessarily object if you thought it was a BLP matter and there were ways of minimizing the fringe advocacy of the subject. This probably requires some patience and care and a bit of WP:NODEADLINE sauce. jps (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that you might be. But I don't think you've done your due diligence on Colavito who has had positive reviews in a number of peer reviewed journals (and many mentions in books that are RS, but it's the journals that show his credibility. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The assumption that when someone calls a senator a "loon" that must be a fringe opinion is, perhaps, the jumping off point. Sometimes senators really are loons. I remember this one senator who pumped his fist in the air at a group of people that he later ran away from. Pretty loony. I remember this other senator who ran for president and had a famous campaign ad where he threw a rock into a pond as a political statement. jps (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, speaking of “the bad old days”, I can recall a similar cycle back in the mid-2000s with 1. intense coverage in popular media, TV, etc. featuring credentialed “experts” representing new “scientific” investigation of paranormal claims, 2. Wikipedia bombarded with new users who felt that, given these “new developments”, scientific proof of the paranormal would rapidly be be forthcoming and Wikipedia should get onboard, and 3. little, if any expert analysis or critique except for self published skeptics. But #1 declined steadily as the paranormal fad was replaced by new sensational popular interests, and #3 was mitigated as academics and science educators became more active in addressing pseudoscience in the media. However, this all took time…a number of years in fact…so it’s a bit disappointing to realize we’re only in the beginning of this new cycle with UFOs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You're telling me. And to have Avi Loeb leading the charge in a certain way is utterly disappointing. Well, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and we're really good at forgetting history. jps (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I see remarkable similarities to 2000s-era amateur ghostbusters pseudoscientific gadget craze, e.g. O.S.I.R.I.S. Off-road Scientific Investigation & Response Informatics System. However the mode of profiteering has certainly evolved since then. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Earth Similarity Index: ESI Table

I would like to bring back the ESI Table in Earth Similarity Index article for research purposes. Nicholas Herak (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend going through the [4] proposal channel if that's what you need. jps (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Incident at Administrator's Noticeboard

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically, we're trying to determine which laws dictate who can delete your comment on the Barbro Karlén talk page. Thank you. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to stop by and express my appreciation for your work keeping the woo on Wikipedia to an appropriate minimum. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. Thanks for all you do too! jps (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey man, please calm down :)

Seriously, I appreciate your support at Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods#RfC about mentioning of climate change, but you're being a bit disruptive. Yes, some editors there have put forward very poor reasons, made obviously flawed statements, but I fear you might be getting close to the point where you might accidentally breach WP:NPA. I've explained there in a recent reply why I felt I needed to start that RfC, as the most neutral way to get attention to the issue. I know the whole thing became a discussion that is very frustrating to participate in, and even I resorted to some occasional cynicism, e.g. to deal with accusations that this was "off topic". But don't let this absurd discussion drag you into a useless fight! So let me give you some advice: Keep WP:COOL, spend some time away from the article and in other areas, and come back in a few days. It helps! (I know you are a much more senior editor than I am, but that won't stop me from giving you advice :P) I promise I will keep an eye on the page in the meantime :) -- LordPeterII (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have your own way of dealing with things, but I am concerned that this dispute may be a stand-in for a bigger problem. I have no doubt that we will end up with a solution that will be amenable eventually, but in my experience these sorts of problems tend to spread insidiously if we pretend that the shell game is not rigged. What is happening here, it seems to me, is agenda-driven editors are more-or-less gaming the system. They probably don't even realize that they are doing it. I have no doubt that certain political corners of the US are in such a bubble that they think that any mention of climate change is a leftwing POV. Sadly, having gone down this road before, I think that the only way to really deal with this editorial issue is to identify people who approach the situation this way whether wittingly or unwittingly. It does not seem to be something that the normal modes of operation on Wikipedia is equipped to handle.

I will wait till the end of the weekend, but I have to say I am not optimistic.

jps (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard Discussion In Progress

Hello. This is a friendly head's up that a discussion was started on the reliable source noticebaord to determine if the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is a reliable source. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, so I wanted to let you know about it and say you may participate here. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding your edit here, and not that it matters much, but a quick analysis with Stellarium reveals for that date, time, and location that Jupiter was actually 9 degrees above the horizon. So thanks for removing those unsourced "facts." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty amazing that this was allowed to slide. jps (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your comment at my talk about my shepherding, but I also want very much to thank you for your contributions in that effort. Your input helped a lot, and it made all the difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do much, only forced the issue. But it seems that something a bit more stable and close to a Hegelian synthesis and Socratic mean has emerged. jps (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!!

		The Death Barnstar
		Hello jps, Thank you for your contributions to Reincarnation. Excellent contributions to articles about death earn this wicked award. "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure." -- Theodore Roosevelt LightProof1995 (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy New Year!

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, jps!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rhodes UFO photographs/GA1

ජපස, if you meant to fail this GA nomination in your review, you didn't finish the job. At the moment, the review remains open and unresolved. The discussion at WT:GAN at the end of September does not appear to have affected the review one way or the other.

To complete the failure process, please see WP:GAN/I#FAIL for the remaining steps. If that is what you wish to do, I'm happy to help if anything is unclear.

If you have another solution in mind for this GAN review, please let me know your intentions, and I'll see what can be done. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I have another solution or not. Discussion is ongoing. jps (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Wilson (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What would J(PS) do?

Regarding your posts here and here, I favor inclusion criteria for both List of reported UFO sightings and UFO sightings in the United States such that the listed events/topics/things have their own, stand-alone enWiki article. That criterion should go far in improving the articles by excluding non-notable, stubby, some-guy-mentioned-something material. I am willing to do my part to keep the ball rolling, as you wrote, by starting the process, but I am uncertain how best to proceed. Would you recommend a full-blown RfC at one/both pages, or simple (yeah, right) Talk page discussions to achieve consensus? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that a WP:BOLD move would be better and just revamp the page. If it could be done in one fell-swoop so people would see what the result would look like, that would be best. Then, if there is pushback, RfC. But I have a feeling there won't be the pushback and, if there is, it won't be substantive. jps (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This also brings up the related issue of many UFO articles having misleading article names, Aurora, Texas, UFO incident being a prime example. Referring to reports of UFO sightings and claims of alien contact as "incidents" is a convention that books written by UFOlogists pioneered starting in the 50s. That many of our articles about UFOs follow this convention is no surprise, since most articles were created by UFO enthusiasts or editors deferring to what they believed was the relevant expert community for such things. Of course, there are a number of legitimate examples (like Roswell UFO Incident, etc.) where WP:COMMONNAME justifies the use of "incident", but there are too many others that need renaming IMO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The word "encounter" is also commonly used in UFO article names, which also seems problematic. Do I assume correctly that boldly changing the titles (i.e., applying the JPS Model) is the best way forward? Or should a broader discussion be initiated, perhaps here? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a discussion doesn't need to be initiated until you encounter resistance. jps (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Feoffer/sandbox History of UFO lore

Hi, Isn't this worth a deletion? Yann (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be. Feel free to propose it. @Feoffer: to see what the intentions are. jps (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: why delete that? I'm using it / working on it. How did you even find it? Is it being linked to from somewhere? I thought public-facing search engines omitted works in progress of this type. Feoffer (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I can think of a few ways it is discoverable through WP either through an internal search or through a contributions search, but I cannot speak for Yann. jps (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear double standard here. You requested deletion of one of my subpage, while this has been here for more than 2 and half years. Yann (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The double standard is baked in to Wikipedia: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said, feel free to nominate it. jps (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a valid Userspace draft, but it might be a good idea to tag it with {{Userspace draft}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

All the cool kids want to know

Regarding If I was going to write a textbook on UFOs (and I actually am doing that from here, is there any good news on that front? A year-long, off-continent sabbatical is coming up in a few months (not mine, my wife's) and I'm lining up things to read/explore/drink. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We just had a meeting about it today. My colleague is actually taking a sabbatical next year to work on the text which is likely to be more broadly on Astrobiology and include UFOs as a single chapter. I can e-mail you a copy of the in-progress chapter if you'd like (though it does need updating). Direct attribution to Colavito hasn't made it into the text yet, I must admit. jps (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and forward a copy to me via email. I will treat it as confidential correspondence. If you are open to editorial/grammatical feedback just give me the high sign. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your notice of the Alderney UFO case on WP:FRINGE noticeboard constituted canvassing according to WP:CANVASS, specifically WP:INAPPNOTE. Your audience was chosen specifically as you believed they would support your point of view, and your message was not neutral. Please avoid this in future.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

My notice was neutral and does not constitute canvassing. 07:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. I mentioned you in an ANI post regarding Boynamedsue's editing behavior at the AfD. Here is the ANI post: [5]. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Giant of Castelnau

Hi. I am wondering if "Giant of Castelnau" should be posted at FTN. The claims are outrageous. In fact looking at the discussion on this article's talk page, I'm thinking this is an AfD candidate. The sources are dated in the 1890's except for one 2017 paper, which discusses the mythology of giants over time. So, that paper does not specifically pertain to the topic. According to the talk page comments, there has been no discussion of this topic since the 1890's. So, what do you think? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a good question. I do see one reliable source: [6], but the whole thing suffers from poor attestation, for sure. It dawns on me that Giant#Archeology_and_paleontology is not well-developed, and probably could stand some care and improvement with perhaps a spin-off article that explains that a) amateur and even some erstwhile professional "bone hunters" of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and through to the earlier parts of the twentieth century often made claims of giant human remains discovered -- none of which panned out and b) these claims form a corpus of an obscure if perhaps well-promoted group of "be amazed" types who are convinced that the evidence is all being covered up by "the establishment" as per usual. If we could get that section up to a spinoff, it probably would serve as an excellent merge target for things like this.

In the meantime, I think maybe stubifying the article may be a good first step. There are a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources and unreliable sources being used right now which need to be contextualized or removed.

jps (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi was going to write you a note about giantology. I like tracking down the obscure and just pretend the modern "be amazed" types don't exist, but if you ever think this is an unhelpful approach for an FTN topic just let me know. Anyway looked at Giant of Castelnau when i saw in the Afd but all i could find was an anthropology student[7] who says 6'5" to 6'7", looks like a cave bear, and plans to publish. Probably doesn't meet WP:PARITY. If the article is kept should probably mention Lapouge was measuring cephalic index of exhumed skulls at Castelnau-le-Lez. fiveby(zero) 00:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I'm glad you found this. This will help contextualize the primary sources and in fact conclude the story behind what Lapouge found. And it will put to rest erroneous 1890s' conclusions. And, this reliable source that is already affixed to the article [8] may also have some coverage. I'm going to try to find some place to download this article. As an aside, the student who contributed the above article mentioned something about publishing this research with her undergraduate faculty mentor. So that article may be somewhere out there if it got published. This is good. I don't think this happens very often with fringey topics. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Historical Biology article just mentions in passing (skimmed the text online somewhere but can't find the link again) but here it is through WP:Library. Looks like a good source for Giant#Archeology_and_paleontology. fiveby(zero) 00:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

ජපස and Fiveby - Giant of Castelnau has now been stubified [9]. Feel free to take a look. We'll see if there is any resistance to this. And I am not sure what to do with the refs that are dated in the 1890s. Any suggestions? I would like to remove them, but I want to see if there is any push back first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

I found that comment amusing so I changed my signature. If you don't like it let me know and I'll change it back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we wear our badges of insults (perceived, actual, intended, or otherwise) with pride here because, hell, what else do we get out of volunteering for this project? Carry on wayward son. jps (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Rumors

Are you writing about me on a related off-site site? If so, why haven't you alerted me to this? I know that's not required but, come on, Wikipedian courtesy? And if not, apologies, but someone apparently has been since the Leary thing happened yesterday and is not willing to "accuse" me of things to my face on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The rumors are true! Wikipedia has very strict outing rules that prevent me from commenting further. I take them seriously, that's why it is off-site. jps (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to join and discuss at the off-site location, but I have had people get pretty mad at me when I have extended such invitations. Still, you are welcome to join that community of misfit toys if you would like. jps (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the invite. I know little about the site, and tend to stay on Wikipedia. Pretty slanted though, I've been sent a couple screen shots, and if stuff like that is what you folks think is a fair representation of whatever it is you are trying to represent, no thanks. For now anyway, maybe I'll drift over at some point. But this below the belt stuff seems very unfair and, of course, understandably turns me off to what you folks are doing over there. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you change your mind, you are welcome. jps (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:VANITY

Please read it before linking it again. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had said, "This redirect should no longer be used." More to the point, this is the first I'm reading of its deprecation. Why isn't there an edit filter? jps (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Grusch

I'm afraid you've bestowed me status I don't deserve, but no problem. The Grusch article is still in the huge and messy stage, so I'll just avert my eyes for the time being. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please report to the draft office immediately for assignment to the front lines! jps (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My platoon is cut off and surrounded. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your indefatigable, long-term efforts to promote encyclopaedic values at David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims and many, many other places. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly

Hello. I noticed you mentioned the Pioneer anomaly here (David Grusch talk page). I remember following that via our Wikipedia article. I started following it perhaps a year before it was solved. It was totally mind-blowing. What could it be?? Then it was satisfyingly solved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's one of my favorite stories for why Ockham's Razor is so powerful. jps (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Beatrice Tinsley

Beatrice Tinsley isn't in the greatest of shape. I want to expand the material on her contributions to astronomy. There are three major parts missing from her professional work: the astronomers whose work she challenged (and possibly superseded, although their sister articles like the big crunch do not mention this), the work she promoted, and finally the work that eventually subsumed her own. I don't know how knowledgeable you are about her, but perhaps you have some advice for moving forward. I can do what I can do with the sources in the further reading section, but it would be nice to have some suggestions from someone in the field. For example, you could make some recommendations on concepts that the bio should mention, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Great project. Tinsley was an expert in galaxy evolution which was fairly nascent in her day. Her feud with Allan Sandage was over whether giant elliptical galaxies (n.b. OHMIGOD! How can this be a red link? I note our article on elliptical galaxies to where giant elliptical galaxy redirects is woefully underdeveloped -- maybe this is s a good place to start?) could be considered standard candles or not. Tinsley argued that they could not, and if Sandage had accepted that he wouldn't have gone down the rabbit hole that led to a conclusion that the deceleration parameter for the universe was positive.

Astronomers in their public facing moments and grant proposals tend to frame a lot of the debates like this in terms of cosmology because those questions are the "big ones", but really this was a question of calibration and detailed astrophysics -- still monumentally important for understanding reality but not the kind of big ticket items that get people to gasp in their seats. When a good standard candle was finally happened upon with Type Ia Supernovae, the accelerating universe was confirmed and we gave out the Nobel Prizes.

One thing that is worthy of note is that Allan Sandage was notorious for browbeating anyone who disagreed with him. He was an amazing observer and scientist who became convinced towards the end of his life that the Hubble Constant was much lower than what we now know it to be. His main interlocutor in this debate was Gérard de Vaucouleurs who took the high number. This is only tangentially related to the deceleration parameter question, but the lore in the astrophysics community back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was that if you published anything that disagreed with Sandage you were liable to get a letter that was varying degrees of nasty towards your work. :) That Tinsley called out Sandage in a meeting in person was not only brave and unusual, it was kinda just desserts.

Anyway, I would focus on the galaxy observations and modeling. Tinsley was right: galaxies are dynamic objects that undergo considerable evolution over cosmic time. We now accept that as a matter of course.

jps (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, those are good pointers. I currently have two lectures queued up about elliptical galaxies to start. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: just spent a few hours listening to lectures and reviewing our articles. I'm more confused now then when I began. It appears that we know very little about elliptical galaxies. I feel like being in a perpetual state of confusion about the universe must be natural for people who study it. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. What is wild is that some supposedly elliptical galaxies have rotation and disks! In any case, giant ellipticals are almost certainly the many smaller galaxies merging and being cannibalized. Dwarf ellipticals are a little more puzzling. Are they stripped bulges/cores of smaller galaxies? Are they somehow related to globular clusters? Or are they also hierarchically formed? Sorry, don't have clear answers for ya! jps (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it still true that they are unlikely to have planets due to all of this chaos, or has thinking changed on that over the years? Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh gee, I'm not sure at all about that one. I think in general the stellar populations, metallicities, and densities of ellipticals would tend to favor fewer planets than bluer, metal-rich, un-dense counterparts. But when you've got a trillion stars, it would be folly to argue "no planets". jps (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just downloaded an enormous treasure trove of information on Tinsely and her research. Due to my Homer Simpson-like brain, it's unlikely I will understand 1% of it, but I may have questions for you about it in the near future. Back to planets for a moment: do you think that looking for life or intelligence on exoplanets might be a lost cause, similar to how SETI has historically looked for radio waves? The reason I say this, is because science fiction writer Ian Banks in his Culture series makes an interesting point throughout the series, arguing that planets are quite rudimentary, parochial, and even quaint, as advanced civilizations would have moved far beyond them into artificial habitats. Do you think this idea might have influenced astronomers and others to look for irregular light fluctuations that one might find with an artificial megastructure, with Tabby's Star an example of this kind of search? In other words, what if searching for planets is a waste of time? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

do you think that looking for life or intelligence on exoplanets might be a lost cause, similar to how SETI has historically looked for radio waves? It is always a good idea to keep open the possibility that the answer to "Where are they?" is "Nowhere." By the same token, you are guaranteed to never find anything if you don't look. Attempts to assign values for a Bayesian prior on these questions, I think, are fraught. David Kipping, I think, explains that point the best. I do not begrudge the SETI folks at, for example, Breakthrough Listen their searches for signals. It's a high-risk/high-reward kind of endeavor that we humans cannot help but engage in. Moving beyond anything but the question of what a technosignature is and how we might decide we've actually seen one is something I'm not prepared to do. I thus get pretty uncomfortable when anyone makes any claims about how life (let alone intelligent life), if it exists beyond our little world, behaves generally out there in the Universe. I also think that science fiction has a somewhat outsized influence on the way SETI people and scientists generally have framed questions and looked for certain phenomena in astrophysics. I would argue that one particular episode of Star Trek: TNG is probably the main source of inspiration behind a minor fad in the scientific literature that tries to model Dyson spheres/Dyson swarms etc. Is this a good way to go about scientific advancement? Eh... I don't know. When you have one datapoint, it is hard to extrapolate. The fact is that in science, it is extremely unusual to see one thing that is never repeated again. The closest I can think of is the Oh-My-God particle consideration of which has yielded some interesting follow-up science though nothing that has yet matched the energy of that monster. Likely what is going on is that we don't actually know what to look for. Let's assume there are pieces of evidence permeating the cosmos pointing to an answer in the negative to the question "Are we alone?" -- my guess is that we are almost certainly still unclear about what is the easiest observation to convincingly make that case and we probably won't really understand how and why we are going about it in the wrong way until we actually make the discovery. For hundreds of years people correctly proposed that planets were probably orbiting most/all the other stars. It was within my lifetime that such observations were finally done to confirm that exoplanets exist and it turns out that the easiest ones to discover look nothing like our own. Which is not to say that no exoplanet system is like our own, and, in fact, our kind of system may very well be somewhat common -- but it's just harder to observe. I kinda like the analogy there.

So keep looking/listening, etc. I don't know what kind of weird "breakthrough" is liable to finally answer The Question in the affirmative. But I am not nearly confident enough to make any pronouncements about what it will be like prior to the discovery.

jps (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I came here to open another thread, and am caught up in reading this discussion. Quite intriguing stuff. I wanted to mention I have watched a bunch of David Kippling's Cool World videos. He is great. The questions he ponders along with discussing and showing the science involved in those questions opens things up for me. I enjoy all his videos. In one video he showed how causality is broken with the going back in time paradox, therefore going back in time is probably not possible. This was the first time I understood the importance of causality. Maybe I shouldn't admit that, but I'm not a physicist. So, from that I realized the causality is important to all kinds of physics. I just wanted to point to this example to show he well he is able to impart important physics and astrophysics concepts to physics and astronomy fan boys like me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think he is much better than the shows made for the general public that oversimplify or over-analogize the science behind science. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad you like David's work! It takes all kinds, really. I've had conversations with David about his YouTube outreach and I think he is well-suited to the niche you are describing. PBS Spacetime maybe serves a somewhat similar role. But I also think we need decent "oversimplifications" and "over-generalizations" as well. The danger, of course, is that you might end up with some, err, problematic extrapolations promulgated as "good science", but I sometimes lament the "Umm... actually" ways in which commentators, critics, etc. go after each other. I guess the question is one of finding and promoting those who do a good job at the basics. Kipping, O'Dowd, Collier, etc. are not trying to be that, and that's fair -- they have their niches. Even the great Brady Haran has become so sophisticated as of late that I guess I need to look for the next, great popularizer of science. They're probably on TikTok. jps (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's good you have such a balanced view, such as thinking decent oversimplifications, etc., are needed. And after watching some of the video you just posted, I can see the value of such presentations, and that they too fill a niche. That Gell-Mann Amnesia video is excellent, by the way. I'll try to find more of her videos. I think Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an excellent science communicator. In fact, I just started watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey for the first time. It is very good.

It seems he can quickly cover and understandably impart several topics or concepts in one episode. For instance, he analogized the history of universe up until the present day with a 12 month calendar, and this example worked for me. I have encountered similar 12 month analogies that didn't work for me with other presenters. And he utilizes the tree of life analogy effectively to show how all species on earth, past and present, are related by our DNA. I guess I already knew that one but his presentation somehow resonated with me. Then I am guessing that you know or know about Sean Carroll. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Neil is great, but he sometimes runs afoul of certain Gell-Mann Amnesia issues similar to Kaku, but, I would argue, not as severe. Sean Carroll is a personal hero of mine even though I find his staunch advocacy for the Many worlds hypothesis to be a bit bewildering. jps (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure I heard an AMA where Carroll said he wasn’t an advocate of many worlds. Did I mishear him? Or is your criticism focused more so on the fact that Carroll hosts many guests who defend it? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Carroll, unless he has recently changed his minds, is an advocate that Many Worlds is the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. See Something Deeply Hidden, for example. jps (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I see most of this is from 2019. There’s a quote on PBS News from that time that sounds like something I recently heard him say: "It's not so much that I'm a fan of many worlds, it's that I care about the foundations of Quantum Mechanics." Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: It looks like I'm out of the loop. Although I've heard around 30 or so Carroll podcasts, I only just heard him come out as a staunch advocate for many worlds. So, just to correct the record here, you were right. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the Kipping video. I've previously recommended him to other users. In this particular video that you shared, Kipping concludes that life is common, but intelligence is rare. I'm curious how this might connect with the currently trendy idea that "we are the first" intelligent species in the galaxy, because it sounds like there is a connection to both of these ideas, but Kipping doesn't address it. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Slightly different take, to be sure, but I think it aligns. You could send him an e-mail. I can't guarantee he'll respond, but he might! jps (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm more interested in your thoughts and opinions at the moment. What do you think of our article on the firstborn hypothesis? I can get behind the idea that humanity is the first form of intelligent life in the galaxy, but the universe? That doesn't make much sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess the article is fine. I can't imagine there is much to say about it except that any filters have to be in excess of the one in the realm of the one Jodie Foster argued (unintentionally?!) in Contact. jps (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I just noticed, Lex Fridman’s interview with Kipping has one of the highest view counts. The public is hungry for this kind of information. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For the record, I value your opinion! I like being pushed on my ideas and engaging in good-faith discussion because it helps me better understand my own position and arguments. Thanks Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please avoid making personal attacks, as you did here[10]. Having failed to follow that guideline, please strike. Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This account should be banned from Wikipedia, in my estimation. You are WP:NOTHERE. jps (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. However, even if I were to be banned, WP:NPA would still apply. Are you refusing to strike? Note in particular that you said I am "willfully ignorant". Adoring nanny (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to go further. You deserve sanction, opprobrium, and if there was a way to enforce WP:RBI, I would do so against your account in a heartbeat. You should be drummed off this website. jps (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And, with that, you are hereby banned from my talkpage, Adoring nanny. You are never to post here again unless it is required of you by policy. That is all! jps (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if either of you are interested, but the "Decoding the Gurus" has a series of excellent podcasts on this subject. They did a round table on the lab leak about three months or so ago, but their more recent interview with Jonathan Howard is somewhat lab leak-adjacent and worth listening to if you get a chance. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time carving out time for podcasts, V. Cliffnotes versions would be appreciated, if you can! jps (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I will try to come up with something for you. If you’re ever on Reddit check out the Decoding the Gurus sub. I suspect you will be familiar with most of the guests and even the hosts. The real interesting thing about the show is how they intentionally slow down all of the arguments and walk the audience through the logic and rationales, quite often using humor to keep the interest alive. Jonathan Howard very briefly outlined some of the most important issues regarding the lab leak hypothesis. This issue is very important for people on the right wing US spectrum, and has become a small part of their anti-government identity, so it’s very personal for them. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the summary from the episode. I have to say, this episode is one of the best out there as a comprehensive debunking of the entire lab leak hypothesis. It's basically impossible, so someone is pushing this hypothesis for unknown reasons, which is the more concerning issue:

The question of the SARS-CoV-2 origin: whether it was a zoonotic spillover from a wet market, or an engineered virus that escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is seemingly a debate that will never go away. Most interestingly, while scientists with specific domain expertise seem to be building a consensus towards the former, public opinion appears to be trending towards the latter. This delta between expert and popular opinion has been helped along by the frothy discourse in mainstream and social media, with most figures that we cover in this podcast dead-set certain that it came from a lab.

Most recently, Sam Harris hosted on his Making Sense podcast the molecular biologist Alina Chan and. science writer Matt Ridley, spokespersons for the lab leak case, and authors of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19". To a layperson, and certainly to Sam, they put forward a rather watertight case. Intrinsic to the arguments advanced were the ideas that (a) experts in the area were refusing to engage with and unable to answer their arguments, and (b) a strong implication that there is a conspiracy of silence among virologists not just in China but internationally, to suppress the lab leak hypothesis.

So, as a case study in the public understanding of science, it seems like a pretty pickle indeed. To help unravel the pickle(?) in this somewhat special episode, we are joined by three virologists who are amply qualified to address the topic; both in terms of the evidence and whether they are involved in a conspiracy of silence.

Kristian Andersen is a Professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research. He focuses on the relationship between host and pathogen, using sequencing, fieldwork, experimentation, and computational biology methods. He has spearheaded large international collaborations investigating the emergence, spread and evolution of deadly pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus.

Prof Michael Worobey, is the head of the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. His work focuses on the genomes of viruses, using molecular and computational biology, to understand the origins, emergence and control of pandemics. Recently, his interdisciplinary work on SARS-CoV-2 has shed light on how and when the virus originated and ignited the COVID-19 pandemic in China and how SARS-CoV-2 emerged and took hold in North America and Europe.

Prof Edward "Eddie" Holmes, is an NHMRC Leadership Fellow & Professor of Virology at the Faculty of Medicine and Health at Sydney University, a member of the Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a Fellow of The Royal Society. He is known for his work on the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases, particularly the mechanisms by which RNA viruses jump species boundaries to emerge in humans and other animals. He has studied the emergence and spread of such pathogens as SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, dengue virus, HIV, hepatitis C virus, myxoma virus, RHDV and Yersinia pestis.

All three researchers have specialist expertise and decades of experience directly applicable to tracking viruses and their adaption to humans, and, fair to say, are fairly eminent in their fields (Eddie in particular!). Further, they are among the relatively small set of researchers collecting and analysing primary evidence on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, communicating their findings in top-ranked journals, including Nature and Science.

In this episode, Chris and Matt put to this trio of Professors the claims raised by lab leak advocates to see what these (damn conspirators) experts have to say for themselves.

I hope that helps a bit. The audio only version is available wherever you get your podcasts. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could convey how tiresome this particular conflict is. On the one side, there were papers in Science. On the other, there were substacks. Carl Sagan asked us to develop Baloney detection kits. I think that all of ours should be going off with alarm bells at that simple accounting. jps (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The people pushing the lab leak theory are doing so out of a political motivation, not because they think the evidence strongly points to a lab leak. We've seen this scenario play out, time and time again. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No doubt. Sometimes the people who are arguing most vociferously that it has to be lab leak or that scientists should pay attention to their minority reports tip their hand by implying that they think all scientists are in it for the grift. No, honey, scientists are motivated to find the truth. They aren't funded to conform to a political agenda. jps (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

On reddit, I am often asked for a proposed solution. Concurrently, on Wikipedia. at least one proposed solution to this problem has arisen, in this particular example, in the article on post-truth politics. It was originally proposed by the American historian Sophia A. Rosenfeld, in her book, Democracy and Truth: A Short History (2019). Although the full solution has been removed from the aritcle (due to a rewrite, but you can see one of the original versions here). I'm curious what you think of these solutions and if they might help ameliorate the current crisis. You can also review some of the proposed objections to these solutions here. I know you are pressed for time, but your comments are appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, Rosenfeld's approaches are pretty close to how we handle things at Wikipedia (accidentally). I don't really know what the answer is, to be honest. I am skeptical that education is all that effective. I'm also not certain that political institutions are always acting in the interests of truth and so, in those cases, propping them up can be counterproductive. jps (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to draw you into any drama, but I left this this message for Jweiss on his talk page. Eric Weinstein seems to have gone full tilt, and it upsets me that he lacks the basic self-awareness to realize this. If you know him, please tell him to take a step back and reevaluate his life. "Decoding the Gurus" did a scathing takedown of his arguments, and makes him look incredibly foolish. Further, Weinstein's treatment of Mick West was irrational and borderline abusive. What's wrong with him? Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled that we continue to tolerate Jweiss11 at this website. I think it's in everyone's best interest that I speak no more on this subject for the time being. jps (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Adoring nanny (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Extracurricular reading

Have you read this [11] by Massimo Pigliucci? There is also this [12] written by him. But, the second linked article seems to be a topic that we deal with on Wikipedia fairly regularly. If you want more fun then take a look at this [13]. Well, now you have your assigned reading for the week :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The impetus for the above is this new article I am working on in my user space [14]. Not sure when I will make it a main space article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Massimo has ben one of my regular reads since I started at this place back in (gulp) 2004. I find him to be pretty good although perhaps I've hoped for a bit more attention paid to cultural aspects of this subject. "Pseudoscience" is such a loaded term. It works great as an epithet, but it is awkward as a subject of study. jps (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unidentified flying object, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jacobs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on Adragon De Mello

Hello There, I just want some clarification on the very long winded discussion related to Adragon De Mello's projected IQ of 400. I don't know how much of the discussion you read or who you agreed with or what not. I just want clarify that I believe that following statement is sufficient, Adragon's father claimed Adragon had a projected IQ of 400 based on a test administered to him at 4 years old.

In the discussion we went into the nature of projected IQ's and whether they are accruate or what not, who can accurately access or divine whether a child's projected IQ is legitimate. And acknowledging that a projected IQ is not an actual IQ. There was already consensus that the sentence, followed by this sentence was sufficient, "However when his father enrolled him in Popper-Keizer, a school for gifted children, standardized tests Adragon took suggested he was around the 85th percentile for students his age, where most students enrolled in such schools where in the 95th percentile."

My Interlocutor in the discussion asserted several things which where WP:OR, such as that Adragon had an IQ of 115 based on a test that wasn't an IQ test,that Adragon wasn't a prodigy because he had help with college homework at 11.That Adragon's father was claiming that he had an IQ 400 before administering a test to him.

I believe either the 400 IQ claim should not be mentioned at all, or should be mentioned as a claim made by his father as WP:NOTE. It should not be "disputed" by people who do not have the expertise to dispute it and instead want to editorialize something they are not familiar with. And if they wish to dispute it, why not investigate the test administered? (Again they are many proposterously high projected IQ's for children out there like Sho Yano.

Best regards 68.189.2.14 (talk) 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow! None of this really matters at all. If you want to remove the 400 IQ claim from the article, just do it. jps (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't - there's someone preventing me from doing so, best regards, and thanks for understanding 68.189.2.14 (talk)

68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You can request the removal of the sentence using Template:Edit semi-protected on the talkpage of the article. Good luck! jps (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

AE discussion

[15]

Selfstudier deleted my evidence section. It could not have been an edit conflict, because my name was in the edit summary. And his statement, paraphrased: "People are making evidence-free allegations".

Is there evidence for me to allege that Selfstudier is deliberately trying to gaslight me? Walt Yoder (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We are tasked with assuming good faith. Replace the section assuming it was a mistake. If the conflict escalates, you should contact an admin (which I am not). In short, I think you should try not to look for motives -- just work on outcomes and assume the best of other Wikipedians until you have exhausted all other options. jps (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A friendly talk-page-watcher fixed the section. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:CIV

Just wanted to privately comment as a peanut gallery in your current discussion on Zionism, race and genetics on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. You're coming across quite hot there, calling people "numbskulls" and you're forgetting to assume good faith in slinging accusations around. I get that's a contentious topic and it's not one I want to go near at all as someone with no expertise, but I think it's perhaps worth stepping back from this one slightly (and consider a strikethrough on some of your harsher phrasing, perhaps). Warrenmck (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appeared I was calling other people in the discussion "numbskulls". Instead, I was referring to race realists. I don't think anyone in that discussion is acting as race realists, but I'll re-read and redact to see if that may be misinterpreted as such. jps (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I went back and checked and I can't really see a way to interpret this differently than something along the lines of WP:NONAZIS. To be fair, I have been dealing a little bit more with, shall we say, Nazi-adjacent characters in the last decade or so, and that may very well cause my phrasing to read harsh to those unaccustomed to how some disastrous things have happened with respect to such groups in the past. Anyway, I appreciate your approach here in coming to me to ask about this and ask for redaction. It actually used to be my personal policy for how to enforce WP:CIV, but it only got used twice, I believe, so I basically sunsetted it. jps (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, after double checking, I think I could see how someone might confuse the antecedent with perhaps the article creator. That was not my intention at all, but intent != impact and, therefore, [16]. I hope this helps! Thanks, again. jps (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly helpful but definitely isn't the only behaviour I was calling out. I don't think you're perhaps doing the best job at avoiding incivility and you run the risk of actively harming your own cause. But it's not my intention to berate you, just remind you of both WP:CIV and the informal reminder you got yesterday from an admin on that front. Warrenmck (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely aware that my tone is seen by many as being harmful to my own cause! You can check my extensive block log for more on that. Thing is, I guess I've become so immune to this that it is often hard for me to see where it happens and so that's exactly why I asked for people to tell me explicitly where they see it. My argument has been and continues to be that civility is in the eye of the beholder. If you think I'm being uncivil, I really do appreciate when a person who perceives that tells me where and how and what I can do to fix it, if they're up for it. It's the only way I know how to learn to be better after all these years. jps (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Thing is, I guess I've become so immune to this that it is often hard for me to see where it happens and so that's exactly why I asked for people to tell me explicitly where they see it."

Then the best course of action is to step away from highly contentious places until you regain perspective, no? I've had one year longer than you on Wikipedia and a single (reverted by admins part way through) ban. Thirty one temp bans should not be viewed as a mark of pride, but perhaps more as a Sword of Damocles demonstrating your need to adjust your approach here.

To be explicit: I don't think the way you called out the commenter in question for not reading the sources was acceptable, really. Righteous indignation didn't need to come through, but that's just my take. Warrenmck (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure where I called out a commenter for not reading the sources. And, to be clear, I don't view my blocks and bans as a mark of pride. The idea that stepping away from highly contentious places will allow me to regain perspective is an interesting one. I'm not sure I've seen it borne out empirically, but Wikibreaks are nice things, for sure! Perhaps I'm overdue for one! jps (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not sure I've seen it borne out empirically"

I genuinely think you're cruising to at least a topic ban, reading that thread from yesterday, if you don't moderate your tone. Then again I am very far from an admin and am just trying to give you a perspective. We clearly agree on a lot of the underlying issues with fringe posting on Wikipedia, but if you can't handle, by your own admission, civility, then you should reconsider your own presence there independent of that decision being made for you. Warrenmck (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, WP:CIV is a poorly considered behavioral guideline precisely because it does not seem to me to allow for differences in opinion as to when it is crossed. As I live under its regime, I rely on others, such as yourself and especially admins to tell me when things are going poorly precisely because there are lots of instances where I think things are going fine and others disagree completely. I used to need that help a lot more than recently, but because it has been so useful I am very sensitive to when people come to me, like you, to argue that I am in abrogation of norms.

But I also think Wikipedia is a bit... big... in the sense that the varied cultures on this site are sometimes mismatched. As far as I know, I've never met you before, and apparently we've both been around this place both for nearly 20 years. You probably have a very different experience of what this place is like than do I. Maybe that's a good thing (I suspect it is for you)!

As for a topic ban, I suppose it is possible, but having seen that happen before, it usually looks a little different than what I'm seeing right now. Still, I have been blindsided in the past, no doubt. Perhaps some other talkpage watcher will let me know if they think it is a risk right now.

Anyway, want to emphasize that I do appreciate the concern evinced in this posting. It is very nice to see people look out for others at this site!

jps (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Jps, taking you up on your comment about people giving you feedback. I looked at the FTN discussion (and went from there to the AfD), and here are the comments of yours that stand out to me: "You are living in a fantasy of your own invention... This has to do with making shit up." And "some bizarre parallel universe where Wikipedia is acting as a college class". The first part of that is a bigger issue for me than the second part is. It does strike me as needlessly personalizing the disagreement, even though I agree with you on the merits. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, WP:CIV is a poorly considered behavioral guideline precisely because it does not seem to me to allow for differences in opinion as to when it is crossed.

And many people (not me, for sure) considered WP:FRINGE to be a poorly formed guideline which stifles alternative viewpoints. You're free not to agree with the policies of Wikipedia, but just putting in a minimal effort not to violate them as a result of that isn't a great idea. I'm not sure you would have survived the recent WP:AR unscathed with this statement published beforehand, for example. It is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with someone on this site without being hostile, and you've been temp banned thirty one times. Surely moderating your tone will help you achieve your own goals more quickly? Warrenmck (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I find many people who are very vocal about not liking WP:FRINGE, and I'm more than okay with that. Complain all you want as long as it doesn't ruin articlespace. In general, I have found that dissent is allowed for stuff like this. It's not really against the rules to disagree with Wikipedia rules, and, to boot, this site has WP:IAR as a fundamental paradoxical rule! Of course, things change over the years and I think you're right that many people these days view these WP:PAGs as beyond reproach. I fundamentally disagree with that, but, then again, I'm a dinosaur.

I am happy to tell the tales of my thirty-one times of being sanctioned (and... incidentally... not all of them were "temporary"), but I suspect most people will find them boring. Those stories are really the story of the development of Wikipedia for me. Could I moderate my tone more? Almost certainly, but I really am trying to put in more than minimal efforts to follow WP:CIV. I just think there is a culture clash, is all, and I am pretty honest about this which may have been an approach that was more usual in the past and just is not as normal to see these days. YMMV

jps (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish! The two comments of the first quote are completely unnecessary to the meaning of my post. I redacted them. The second one, I guess, is personalizing because I am accusing the opponents of operating differently than WP:ENC? I'm trying to see how it is personalizing because I would like to do better. jps (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

[17] Does taking out "some bizarre parallel universe" help make it more civil in your eyes? jps (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I think leaving in the part about acting like a college class implies that other editors are being immature, but that's a quibble. The overall effect of your redactions seems very helpful to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

OH NO! I never thought that it would insult people to be thought of as students in a college class! I love college classes and wish I could be in more of them... it's just not really what I see Wikipedia as being. Let me see what I can do. jps (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

[18] I feel like this is a bit over-the-top, but it has the benefit of approximating really how I felt when writing that statement. I view Wikipedia and encyclopedia writing as the drudgery and place for the dullards by comparison to some sort of task requiring the reading of 2500 pages of dense academic literature prior to the start of commentary. jps (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that I read it, I'm afraid people will read sarcasm into it. Sigh. You call people brilliant online, they think you're saying they're stupid. Yuck. jps (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's best not to overthink it. It's adequate as is, and you have demonstrably made a sincere effort to fix things, which is what matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Why not try to have a scintific writing approach towards these specific issues? Take a much more casual tone in conversations like you're having with us here, but if it's time to criticize someone's edits switched into reviewer (not reviewer 2) mode and try to just get as technical as you can? Not to the point of unreadability, but it may help you to have a more dispassioned "voice" for dealing with this specific topic, while not basically asking you to self-censor all of your personality online? Warrenmck (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm known for being somewhat scathing in my reviews as well even when I think I'm being nice. I guess I'm reviewer 2. :( jps (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

What to do about the fake guideline

I don't think any progress is possible when discussion occurs at the essay TP. Discussion is also marred by the fact that most editors have zero idea what a citation index is or what it means to be "selective": they just trust the claim that certain indices only contain "the best" journals and do not realize the implications of auto-notability conferred by inclusion. I think a well-thought-out RfC that explicitly focuses on the aspects that conflict with PAGs would be helpful:

• Inclusion does not correspond to SIGCOV in IRS; the essay proposes a completely separate route to notability than SIGCOV or secondary sourcing.
  • Additionally: the argument that autogenerated numbers like a CiteScore or ranking constitutes SIGCOV is bogus, especially when coupled with the argument that identical coverage provided by a "less-selective" citation index, or by a "selective" index for a different type of topic, is somehow now not SIGCOV.
• Citation indices are nowhere near selective enough to ensure inclusion even predicts significant secondary independent coverage, nor are they selective enough to exclude junk journals. This directly encourages NPOV violations.
  • The essay thus automatically licenses creation of tens of thousands of articles on journals for which all description is sourced exclusively to what the journal promotes about itself. Potentially thousands of journals are considered acceptable in mainspace despite only being sourceable to the journal and trivial database numbers. A journal that was indexed by Scopus for one year and then delisted after sliding into pseudoscience would receive an article containing solely its self-description and a handful of completely context-free, meaningless-to-most numbers and dates from citation indices. 99% of readers have no idea they are supposed to read an end-date in Scopus indexing on an extant journal as a red flag.
  • If not being listed on Scopus is a red flag for a journal that otherwise appears eligible, then inclusion clearly does not imply a journal is among the best in the world. It implies it is not total garbage.
  • WoS and Scopus currently index plenty of journals that regularly publish bad science by bad scientists and/or are edited by lunatics, but without coverage of the journals themselves in that context, it would be COATRACKING to mention such transgressions.
  • Wikipedia should not serve as an advertising vehicle for even legitimate, high-quality journals. We would never accept an article on a business that only cited its own website and an accreditation service ranking it by profit among all businesses in its industry with that accreditation. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm suffering from a bit of Wikiburnout, but I can definitely be a co-signer on a RfC like this. jps (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's do it

I think now we have the perfect opportunity of fixing NJOURNALS: we have the attention and agreement of several external editors. It's the only way the local consensus is going to be overridden, clearly the NJOURNALS authors are beyond the reach of reason. It needs to be something short and to the point. I'd suggest "Are the criteria 1.b and 1.c acceptable for determining notability?" Tercer (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with such an RfC. jps (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! How about you, JoelleJay? Tercer (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

My concerns are that any RfC to change particular parts of NJOURNALS will be perceived as (further) endorsement of it as a whole, even if it doesn't go through an official guideline promotion. And while there's been definite strong opposition to the criteria when they're described in other venues, so far only a couple editors have actually followed up by engaging at the NJOURNALS talk page, which makes me worried there won't be as much external engagement or sustained interest to rebut the guaranteed participation bloc of NJOURNALS editors if an RfC is held there. But I also anticipate that editors not in the loop would view all of this as a project-level dispute with no effect on the larger community/mainspace (since obviously essays shouldn't be used or counted at AfD), and so raising it at VP would be met with complaints that these issues should be discussed at the essay talk instead (because it's "only an essay") and that bringing it up elsewhere is forum shopping (which argument will of course be endorsed by the NJOURNALS crowd too).
Of course, if someone does still want to martial an RfC I will participate. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

NJOURNALS is not going to disappear if we ignore it. The NJOURNALS people are going to continue using it as a fake guideline and will never fix anything. I don't worry about "endorsing" it, I just want to improve it. And if we can eventually change NJOURNALS into something acceptable via RfCs that's a good thing, it would be good to have a notability guideline for journals.

Maybe there won't be enough external engagement, but we won't know until we try. I plan to advertise it at VP, and the WikiProjects on Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy. Tercer (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started the RfC, in case you haven't seen. Tercer (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics

Hello, ජපස,

The AFD on this article closed as "No consensus". So, moving it to Draft space was an improper and irregular editing decision that was bound to quickly be reverted which is what happened. Please do not act against the consensus of an AFD closure even if your personal opinion differs from that outcome. Doing so persistently could lead to a partial editing block from the article or some more severe action. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Your eyes would be appreciated on this 'RM' to draftify if you are able/FYI. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: I am curious, what are the rules for what is and is not permitted after a "no consensus" AfD? I cannot find them well elucidated anywhere. jps (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be well to self close the RM, persistence in the face of a wall of opposition is not a good look. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Tagging

I love you, dude, but this was not helpful. The primary contributor is already asking other editors for help expanding the older aspects of the topic, and they even posted a preliminary outline on the talk page that they are requesting others help out with. I just don't see how the tag helps us. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Informational tags are meant to help attract attention to a page to help improve it and alert readers of potential problems. How does this tag not do those things? jps (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Dude, my dude. I just answered that question in my first comment. No worries; I get it, you're a tagger. I'm not. Tags are best used as a last resort. As I explained above, attention was already attracted to the page by the primary contributor, and we discussed it on their talk page and in response they posted an outline addressing how to expand the article, as well as contacting other users for help with this task. I'm currently helping, and my efforts began before you added the tag. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a difference in belief about what tags mean. Anyway, no objection to removing the tag once the issues are addressed, of course. Feel a little weird about removing it prior to that. Readers like my students who don't know much about Wikipedia really do benefit from an informational tag like that at the top of an article. The alternative is to go to draft space where people won't stumble upon it. I am pretty sensitive to "in process" article development being exposed to Googlejuice. Seems like we just have different approaches. jps (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we have different approaches. I add maintenance tags only when discussion fails or there’s no way for me to address the problem. Sometimes I do use it like you do, in other words, to alert people of a problem, but that’s pretty rare, maybe a few times a year. I often prefer to fix problems rather than leave them for others. In other business, we have a serious fringe problem in other wikis. The Spanish language version of Project Sign (you can visit it from that page) makes mention of Majestic 12 as if it is real and has a few other minor issues with bias in favor of the ETH. You may want to take a look or notify others that there’s a problem brewing in other languages. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Spanish-language OVNI true believers are impossible to deal with, I have found. I gave up on that a long time ago. If you know anyone who knows how to work through that, let me know. jps (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a random sample of fringe-related topics on non-English wikis, measured the apparent bias, and reported back? This is something the Signpost would publish. To make the process easier, you could make a bot request that would capture the data. All you need to do is comb through the FNB archives to determine the top problematic topics and ask the bot to download the non-English versions and output them to a list. Might be an interesting project. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Left a comment here, if you're interested. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

please remove comment

{{subst:uw-npa1}}

Your following comment on my talk page is in my opinion a clear personal attack and quite rude to say someone's actions is uncouth. It's also against assuming good faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Westerosi456H#Warning_regarding_canvassing_rules

"Okay. In the future, I would say that asking others directly for comments like this is a little out of the ordinary and may be looked upon as uncouth." Westerosi456H (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No. You're wrong about that. Learn how to operate here first before you post bizarre accusations like this. jps (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Kind of funny in a way how different people respond to things. If you called me uncouth, it would just make me laugh. I couldn't imagine getting upset about it (hmmm...does that mean it's true??) Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It takes all kinds. jps (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

opened a ticket on admin noticeboard

" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack Westerosi456H (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Templating me and no AGF

This is the second time you've templated me over the Tim Noakes article. Your uncollegial, non-AGF approach is crap. WP:DTR The defence Noakes published, and I cited, was originally put into the article as a reply to the MacAlpine criticism, but after extensive editing things got moved around and now it does not fit on the Grebe paragraph, in hindsight. There are many ways you could have approached this with me, but the way you did it sucks. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You might consider putting a notice on your usertalk page about your disdain for warning templates since you remove them. We don't interact enough for me to know that this is your preference when I see something that I identify as a problem. "Don't Template The Regulars" is not policy. jps (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Journal of Cosmology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll refrain from editing the article now. jps (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Look, you nominated two of my articles for deletion, I believe you are wrong and I want to tell you why. I am not looking to hype a UFO story, I am trying to document it. I am not making any conclusions out of it, I just presented it as first hand witness told it. You were critical towards the sources used in your nomination for deletion, but all of these sources have first-hand witness accounts who talk about the event. Nobody can claims these events were unearthly, alien etc, they just appear to be unexplained from our current understanding. Franjo Tahy (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Franjo Tahy: With respect to UFO sightings in Yugoslavia, your claim of "first hand witness accounts" is irrelevant, as it is impossible - at least for me and I assume >99% of all other readers of the English Wikipedia - to evaluate the referenced sources (although reference 2 seems to have no content other than reader comments, and reference 4 links to an unrelated...something). Without confirmation that these alleged, sensational events were objectively covered by independent, reliable secondary sources (please see WP:RS), the article really has no place on the English Wikipedia. Do you have any sources in English that satisfy WP:FRIND? If not, I believe it would be best to have the article deleted until such time as appropriate sources can be found. My admittedly brief search for appropriate sources did not reveal any, just unreliable sources like reddit, nicap, amazingstories.net, etc. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because there aren't such sources on English language. That's the whole point - to make knowledge available to people who don't understand Serbo-Croatian. Večernji List, Slobodna Dalmacija, Nova RS are in my book reliable sources... I don't see what makes this article worse than articles about other UFO cases that are already on English Wikipedia, but if you guys think this is constructive thing to do, then go ahead and delete it. I don't claim I'm always right. Franjo Tahy (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with "first hand witness accounts" is that they are essentially WP:PRIMARY sources. They may be contained in a secondary sourced newspaper article, but they are still primary sources. Claims about strange UFOs that can't be stopped and the military giving up cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Another problem is the newspaper or media outlet credulously presenting these claims without any independent analysis or independent journalistic investigation. I see a few of these Croatian language articles feature grey alien artwork with their headlines. This kind of silly hype is not the serious WP:FRIND sourcing Wikipedia requires. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. Franjo Tahy (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

https://washingtonspectator.org/ufo-tales-falling-apart-after-hearings/

you shared this article and said: "Excellent analysis. Provides some decent framing for our article and includes some choice identifiers that we knew were there but were missing."

my question is did you actually read that article or were you just told to share it by others who have an agenda? It's clearly a purile propaganda piece and is not even pretending to have any legitimate arguments against what actual experts and scientists are saying about serious issues of national security. AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

you can redicule the subject but it only shows that you lack analytics skills and ignorant to facts. AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

But if you get paid for it, then that's a diferent story. I hope you do get paid for being this active on here. you gotta pay the bills somehow even if it means pretending to be ignorant. AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

you're also putting your head in the sand:

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/

"When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” " AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

this issue is getting exposed very soon. better start updating your resume man. AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone needs some cheap tinfoil, just let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think Deputy Secretary of Defense and Senate Majority leader need one. You're obviously a very sane person. Arrogance and idiocy of you people is amazing.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think you're more qualified to comment on this than senators, Pentagon officials, long time intel officers, maybe you need to get your head out of your ass and borrow a brain. AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

instead of being an NPC, why don't you learn how to read man? AlirezaMohammadpasand (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I would dance and be merry / Life would be a ding-a-derry ... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how angry UFO true believers are. jps (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Variations of the ex-government/military/science whistleblower/cluedropper continue to be successful in the UFOverse, probably because it's a formula that easily gets a lot of attention and is reinforced by credulous newstainment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The cluedroppers' motivations are always so interesting to me. Graves and Loeb testified in the same meeting that paraded the Jaime Maussan hoax out in front of the Congress of Mexico. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever get the chance to ask them directly how they feel about that. jps (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion: it's a mix of pathological belief, political opportunism, and profitable grift. But the noise created by all this is so loud that quietly stated facts like these never make it into our articles: To date, there has been no documented damage to a plane caused by a UFO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it easier to make sense of the politicians and the grifters, than I do to make sense of the apparent true believers. The person who left these messages here seemed so over-the-top to me, that I wondered if it were a troll instead of a believer. As jps said, the amount of anger seems out of balance with the actual situation. I guess some people come to have so much of their identity tied up with conspiracy theories that any threat to the theory is like a threat to their sense of self. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Colavito pointed out that Loeb is using explicitly religious phrasings in some of his recent discussions about what he thinks "we" should be doing: [19] When seen from the same thinkspace as religious belief, I think I can begin to understand. Arguments over religion make the "vicious and bitter forms of academic politics" look positively pleasant, in my experience. jps (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස @Tryptofish @LuckyLouie

You guys think you can pass yourselves as intellectual simply by rediculing others and conforming to existing narratives and refusing to change your dogmatic views unless CNN or NYtimes tells you to. You guys are so obsessed with discrediting Grusch and others, yet you ignore all evidence they are presenting. You don't understand how government Intel agencies works and how classsifications work and yet you opine on it as if you know everything.

If any of you actually wants to learn anything about it you can listen to this guy destroy everything you and Mick West, Colavito, Greenstreet and the rest of garbabge journalists say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJJM4YydWkI

Now you can go ahead and childlishly resort to tell on me to administrators to ban me from posting here. You guys are not serious people and not here to have serious discussions as it only reveals how shallow your understanding of these issues are. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish You seem to be the one who has their identity tied to rediculing others. Not sure what conspiracy you are talking about but conspiracies usually don't get proposed into law by Senate Majority leader and several High ranking senator, intel officials, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hmaflNoKU&t=178s

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස you seem to be following Graves and others very closely. They are 100 times more honorable than you will ever dream to be. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස you refer to me as a UFO true believer. Does that you mean you believe there is no intelligent life in a universe of two trillion galaxies? If so yes I am proud to not be as dumb as you. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie well I think you should probably find something else to do instead of following me around wikipedia and commenting on everything I post and reporting. Do you know you are acting like a stalker and a creep? AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

the only conspiracist here are you guys thinking that pople in high positions in government are credulous and crazy and are chasing ghosts. That a conspiracy. Not stating facts. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස if 2024 NDAA and UAP disclosure amandement passes, you, Mick West and rest of clowns will be out of a job. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

from UAP disclosure amendment passed in senate:

(4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review as set forth in Executive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 3161 note; relating to classified national security information) due in part to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as well as an over-broad interpretation of ‘‘transclassified foreign nu2 clear information’’, which is also exempt from man3 datory declassification, thereby preventing public disclosure under existing provisions of law AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You guys are paid "skeptics" and debunkers, if you're not paid then you're just lack analytic skills and don;t like to use your brains. AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

lastly I have news for you, in very short time, you will be embarrased beyond belief when All grusch's claims turn out to be true and I hope at that time you look back and realize what repulsive and uncivil behaviour you were showing AhmadrezaMohammadi (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

one of your friends deleted my post (says a lot about how confident you guys are in your logic) so I'm posting again: MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If you guys have the higher logical ground, why bother constantly deleting my posts? Are you afraid of other people to see how dumb your arguments are? MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

in very short time, you will be embarrased beyond belief when All grusch's claims turn out to be true and I hope at that time you look back and realize what repulsive and uncivil behaviour you were showing It's a very short time until the great day of reckoning, so why not just sit back and wait, secure in the knowledge that you will be proven right and the rest of the world will be be proven wrong. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

well it's because you can't keep your mouth shut and not talk about things you know nothing about. MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

it's really funny how you people feel like you can insult and redicule everyone and yet are so coward to hear their response and resort to blocking. MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

if you get out of your bubble and actually talk to people, you realize how dumb your arguments are. but no, let's just delete everything he says so we don't feel uncomfortable hearing the truth. MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

so is NASA also a conspiracy loving UFO true beliver for assigning a UFO director? MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

please tell your friend JOJO ANTHRAX to mind his/her own business and stop deleting my post MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

it's so telling when people resort to deleting your posts when their argument has zero merit. MohammadrezaShajarian12 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not just wait until the grand revelation comes to pass. Because it certainly will happen, won't it? And it won't be long at all. And when it happens, you can come back and say "I told you so" and be triumphantly vindicated. Until then, it's a huge waste of your energy to try to convert unbelievers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

well well well. looks like we're getting somewhere.

this morning a democrat and a republican are saying that DOD IG has told he can't talk to them about Grusch's claims because the don't have the clearence to hear about them!!

https://twitter.com/DCNewsPhotog/status/1717568794363584891

but I'm sure there's nothing to worry about right? Unknown craft are showing up in restricted airspace and even members of congress can't get information because they don't have clearence. Now Let's go back to rediculing the subject and Grusch. Akram-rahimi3 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

congressman question: do we have aliens?

DOD IG: sir I can't talk about this because you don't have clearence to hear about them.

REP: who has clearence?

IG: can't tell you that either.

JPS and luckylouise conclusion: Grusch is crazy and he must be wrong =))) Akram-rahimi3 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

JPS: it's all a hoax! the reason DOD IG can't talk about Grusch is because he doesn't want to scare reps with scary stories of vampires and warevolves! that all makes sense now. after all vampire stories are classified at Top secret and above. Akram-rahimi3 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

LuckyLouie: it's all a distraction! They want to distract Netanyahu from Killing palestinians. They should kill as many of them as possible ASAP. Don't get distracted by these vampire stories and little green men. Kill Kill Kill! Akram-rahimi3 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

who cares if somehow nukes are getting deactivated and activated by unknown objects and no one wants to give any answers to even congresspeople? obviously what's in Hunter Biden's laptop is more important. Akram-rahimi3 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Blanking/redirect of Multiplicity (psychology)

Not objecting to the outcome, objecting to the way you went about it. Care to WP:AFD it instead so it's not a unilateral action? lizthegrey (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd nomination) which I took the liberty of nominating on your behalf. For what it's worth, I think you're right to redirect/merge the article but think it should go to Multiplicity (subculture) instead of to DID. Curious to hear your feedback. lizthegrey (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

AT & Neutral POV

Awww so you are advocating that MBSR should have the alt med banner, I get it now. Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] AT should get the mindfulness banner. MBSR is often practiced by psychiatrists... There are a lot of good papers on it. 2600:4040:9121:B00:7156:F061:F313:FFBC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have you actually read this talk page? We have been waiting for a very long time for those "good papers on it" and you say there are "a lot"? Why then do we keep getting papers suggested that aren't good. Bring on the "good papers"! Sgerbic (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

These comments were excluded from the conversation; your decision seems hasty and hasn't collected enough facts about the situation, in my opinion. 2600:4040:9142:D700:8890:E83C:FA02:832E (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to get an account if for no other reason than it makes dealing with controversy easier on this website. jps (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hi! What possible purpose do you think could be served by edit-warring at Domestic Muscovy duck? Please self-revert your last edit and start a talk-page discussion instead. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll let other handle this. I have reported the dispute to WP:FTN#Muscovy duck. jps (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Conduct in Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Let's move on.

I am glad to get more editors editing and strengthening Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, but there are serious problems with the way you are currently approaching it. You appear to be disregarding the content of sources and Wikipedia policies on the basis that the article does not conform to your personal beliefs. Furthermore, several of your comments and edit summaries have been uncivil. This edit[20] is the most particularly problematic with respect to content and conduct. Also, it is highly irregular that you unilaterally executed a page move while it was under discussion. You need to immediately begin to work more collaboratively. Sennalen (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) I am watching this account closely. You have been warned about WP:CTOP already so if you continue certain WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY, I will ask for you to be topic banned at WP:AE. jps (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Just a thought: My hunch is that your comment here gave rise to the idea of taking you to AE. If you had simply not replied, it might not have happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Placeholder for future comment. I have thoughts, but I will wait to make them known. jps (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Not to relitigate anything here, but this rejection of discussion[21] was the red line for me. Sennalen (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) In light of the conclusion of the AE thread and with a nod towards WP:GRAVEDANCING which I think is a bad cultural trait of this place I do not want to encourage, I'm closing this thread with no further action taken. jps (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Sennalen (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

?

Special:Diff/1187383180 -- it's one thing if you have actual evidence, but otherwise, I think that evidence-free accusations of antisemitism are a pretty cheap shot to take against someone. jp×g🗯️ 20:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've commented in the same AE thread, and noticed the same edit. But I understood it in terms of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (which Cultural Marxism redirects to). The page clearly labels that conspiracy theory as antisemitic. I looked superficially, and the editor that jps was referring to is all over the talk page – although I didn't look at all their comments, so I don't know if anything was antisemitic, but I do see a lot of editors disagreeing with that editor. jps' comment describes the editor as "pro-conspiracy theory", and then describes the conspiracy theory, accurately, as antisemitic. So I ended up taking jps' comment as mainly being that the editor POV pushes about conspiracy theories, with the secondary fact that this conspiracy theory is antisemitic. And there does seem to be evidence that this editor is active in that subject area. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Selective redaction was one of the reasons I voted oppose at the OP's RFA. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: (who has been acting like an erstwhile clerk in that filing): I am reading up on WP:RPA and note that this practice has somewhat unclear standards on our pages. There are straightforward bright lines for outing and removing other's perceived personal attacks on your own userpage is uncontroversial, but it strikes me as being at least somewhat questionable to redact another user's own statement on WP:AE. Are there other instances of this happening at WP:AE? Does anyone know how we might determine the legitimacy of such action, especially as there is obviously some controversy as to whether the claimed statement constitutes a "personal attack"? jps (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

c.f. [22] for those who are playing along at home. jps (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I had done this: [23], but I've also done this: [24], reverting that redaction as inappropriate. As for the "bone to pick" referred to below, I had remembered BC's oppose, and I've been wondering about a bone to pick, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

JPxG... This is the third time in one weekten days you have waded into a situation to oppose something I've said. Is there some particular bone to pick that you have? jps (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

RX J0852.0−4622

Can you check out this article and tell me if the sources are accurate? Two other ones not in the article, Bernd Aschenbach (2016) and Richard Peter Wade (2019) also support the idea that the supernova was visible in Japan in or around 1271 on 13 September. While I would like this to be true, as it would provide an explanation based in archaeastronomy for the rise of Nichiren Buddhism as a cultural force in Japan, it does appear to be somewhat of an extraordinary claim. The artist Kuniyoshi depicted the legend in the 1830s in this image. Some of the people pushing this idea could be off their rocker, but Bernd Aschenbach seems legit. It would make a great hook for a DYK that I'm working on, so I'm hoping you can take a look. I'm not going to get my hopes up, though. It's too good to be true (or potentially true). Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely WP:ECREE territory. Aschenbach, the discoverer of the remnant, may be a competent astrophysicist, but he is also highly motivated to attribute as much as possible to his discovery. Aside from the ice cores (which is circumstantial evidence at best), all of the archaeoastronomy claims seem to originate entirely from Wade. In general, I don't think it is a good idea to take our cues from architects about archaeoastronomy. This paper feels most definitive to me in terms of age estimates. While an ~800 year age is not completely ruled out, it looks highly unlikely. I think the correct order of operation here is to acknowledge a few things: (1) the remnant is close, (2) there isn't enough positional data from the Maori and Zulu oral histories to attribute any specific datetime and sky position to their celestial portents, (3) ice cores analyses require a number of proxy arguments to work (and the most obvious tests given well-attested to historical supernovae are either unavailable or haven't been done), and (4) the Japanese claim looks very convenient and not at all well-attested to. Remember, a nearby supernova like that would be visible in the night/daytime sky for weeks! No one else reported it in India, in China, or other locales which would have had a far better viewing opportunity than Japan. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but to reject the null hypothesis requires something more than a story about a one-time celestial intervention (which, as you are no doubt aware, is an extremely common trope across the world and is not always associated with anything other than mythmaking). jps (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. Do you think the September 13th material should be removed from RX J0852.0−4622? It seems out of place, and the sourcing is pretty weak. Viriditas (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the page, and I think readers will be confused (as I was) by the lead image: is the page about the "purple" stuff at the left, or the small bright thing at the right? There should be a caption explaining that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's even more confusing than that! It's an image of a supernova remnant within another supernova remnant. It only makes sense when you look at the other images, such as the ones in Aschenbach 1998. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, my PhD went for nothing... WTF?? (And if I'm confused, so will our readers be.) So the small thing to the right is the supernova remnant (the central compact object???), and the "purple" stuff at the left is a synchrotron nebula? I tried thinking of how to tag the page for clarification needed, and I couldn't even figure that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The image is not the best. It is a section of the shockwave shell of the supernova imaged by the Chandra X-ray telescope combined with the visible sky image from the digital sky survey. The center of the remnant is out of frame, off to the left. This is a better full-frame image. The problem is that the thing is so big on the sky, you can't really capture the entire nebula in one Chandra image and there really is no reason to go image the fainter parts of the remnant. jps (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is over my head, and not just because it's up in the sky. It would really improve the page if there could be some sort of caption for the infobox figure, explaining what the two things in the image are, or at least explaining that both of them are relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The star in the image is irrelevant. I'll have a go at it, but, as I said, I don't think this is the best image for this article. jps (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If the star is the bright thing at the right, then all you need is a caption saying "RX J0852.0−4622 (left)". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you already wrote a caption, and I like it much better than what I said. That actually makes it clear to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is the image is showing only part of the remnant. I tried my best. I'm not sure why they included so much "blank" sky in their choice for the image crop, but maybe it's for aesthetics. jps (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the cropping is suboptimal, but I think that the caption you wrote is very good, and resolves the confusion that I had (and that I expect our readers would have). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Specific dates like this seem highly suspect. They are based entirely on Aschenbach and Wade. Yeah, I'd take it out. jps (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been reading some more of Wade, and the way he uses citations makes no sense to me. I went back to read his PhD thesis and even there, it made zero sense. I went back and checked his work and many of the citations for Nichiren didn't add up. Something is wrong with his work. Do we know if his thesis was ever accepted and he received his PhD? I tried to find out but couldn't make heads or tails of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I have no idea, but given that it was presented to the Department of Geology(!), it hardly matters whether it was or it wasn't. Geology is not the correct discipline for such a study. That is immediately disconfirming. jps (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I was lurking and trying to digest Taylor–von Neumann–Sedov blast wave, but the text in Vela Supernova Remnant cited to [25](~200 parsecs, ~680 yrs) should go? A footnote in jps's 2015 paper says the ⁴⁴Ti observation is unlikely. fiveby(zero) 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent catch. It seems that Pat Slane could not find the claimed line and it looks like it may have been a misidentification. We should remove that Nature article. There is also a claim that the remnant was discovered by means of that emission. This is not true. While the claimed detection was published in the same issue of Nature, the discovery was through ROSAT and not through COMPTEL. This should be fixed in both articles. jps (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I realize your time is limited, but any chance you can represent and reframe the now missing material with better sources in the future? I only ask because it would be nice to retain a discussion about time and distance (and the potential for viewing it in the past) if at all possible. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have to think about what the best thing to say should be. There actually is still some controversy over whether this is a SNR at all, though I think the preponderance of the evidence is that it is. jps (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently i should have learned how to date SNR's in high school, but somehow missed out. Removed the Archaeoastronomy text saying it's an easy thing to do tho. fiveby(zero) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I dated an SNR in high school, but the relationship was rather explosive. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Still thinking how best to handle this. I think I would include the COMPTEL Nature article, Pat Slane's response, and use the 2015 article as the starting point (with reference made to other distance and time measurements made therein). The CCO angle is a good one too, especially as there was some question as to whether there was a different pulsar that could have been the end product. Speculations on historical observations of it are best left to the WP:UNDUE purgatory of uncited literature. jps (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done jps (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice work. Your prose style is quite good. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Low hanging red fruit

Imagine my surprise that Wikipedia has no article on central compact objects. For those wanting to know, these are almost certainly nearby neutron stars at the center of supernova remnants which glow in the x-rays but seem to have no pulsations. Unlike magnetars or millisecond pulsars or x-ray binaries, etc., they don't have a large contingent of researchers working on them, but they're pretty fascinating things, IMHO. jps (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alert: Ignorance Incoming. So does the lack of pulsations imply that the objects aren't rotating (which seems highly unlikely)? Or that the rotational axis is pointed directly at us, or nearly so? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak magnetic fields, so no beaming of radiation, more than likely. There actually are three that have weak pulsations. But those pulsations were wicked hard to detect. jps (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Central compact object

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central compact object, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello ජපස, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Solar cycle

New user just showed up. Please review these additions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Crucifixion of Jesus

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crucifixion of Jesus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. BCorr|Брайен 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If any talkpage lurker wants to join the conversation at the article talkpage, feel free! jps (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

K2-18b

I don't know if this interests you, but there's a discussion here about edits adding podcast content. I'm a fan of the Planetary Society, but I think this information is slightly unnecessary as 1) it duplicates info already in the article, 2) engages in a bit of crystalballing, and 3) the relevant info should simply be merged into the already existing sections. Just my opinion, but if you have time, please take a look. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of university presses

Hi, I happened to run across your comments about Diana Walsh Pasulka on WP:FTN, and I noticed that our article on Pasulka lists two of her books published by Oxford University Press.

Because over the past year I have found myself in the midst of arguing about the reliability of university press sources (with me arguing that a book shouldn't be presumed a reliabile source just because a respected university press publishes it), I have been considering writing a wiki-essay about this.

A university press has a peer review process, but the editorial board makes the final decision and can publish anyway even if the peer reviews are negative, because the board may have a goal of encouraging scholarly debate or publishing more books on particular topics.

Would you say these might be examples of unreliable sources published by a university press? I am looking for others, books you may know of that promote fringe topics. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the big problem with university presses is that the editors will choose reviewers from within the group that the author selects (typically). I saw this problem most brazenly with the publication of Bjorn Ekeberg's Book on Cosmology which was vetted by absolutely no cosmologists, I can assure you. I can find plenty of other examples. The question of genre is actually the one that is best looked at! jps (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Haven't we had this discussion before? A UP is generally a good indication, but not a guarantee, of quality. And some UPs are higher-minded than others. Oxford UP, for example, publishers some pretty rank quackery in the form of Andrew Weil's Integrative Medicine Library.[26] Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I recall that this OUP-published text on "health foods" was being used years ago in my dust-up with the homeopaths as proof positive that homeopathic preparations actually contained the plants they claimed to contain. jps (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of the loop, but AIUI OUP was cut loose to be an independent commercial publishing company while keeping the "university press" moniker. It is a very profitable publisher (how very Oxford!). Cambridge UP kept its academic leadership, and churns out many a commercial dud. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Yes, the discussion has been had before, in many places and times. I felt it might be appropriate to write an essay about it, and perhaps get something incorporated into WP:RS. I've run across instances where an editor insists that a source must absolutely be considered reliable just because a respected university press published it. An example that comes to mind is Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources involving a book with a minority viewpoint published by an obscure adjunct professor, and a followup same argument made in Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35 (very long discussion, search the page for "university press" to find that part). The argument about university presses arises enough that I thought it would be good to have some sort of document to point to, outlining the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Doesn't this speak to a a more general issue? It isn't just a matter of reliability automatically attached to university presses, but reliability attached to any, well, "reliable" publisher. For example, what you wrote above - "A university press has a peer review process, but the editorial board makes the final decision and can publish anyway even if the peer reviews are negative" - applies to pretty much every legitimate scientific journal of which I am familiar, regardless of the specific publisher. It might not happen habitually, but the editors of reliable, non-university-press journals - and I am thinking here of Nature, Science, etc. - sometimes make publication decisions contrary to the recommendations of peer reviewers. That doesn't mean that every single paper published by Nature or Science is necessarily suspect, and I believe the same holds true for content published by university presses. Articulating the nuances in an essay might be a challenge, but I certainly encourage you to give it a shot. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Thanks, I tried to add this nuance to the draft essay (linked below). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Jps and @Bon courage: I have started a very rough first attempt at User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses). Feel free to add examples, correct any errors I made, and add points that I am sure I have missed. Eventually I'd like to move it to the Wikipedia namespace but it's far from ready. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

American Cosmic touts the Oxford University Press imprint. I had the impression that readers could trust the editorial team at Oxford to filter manuscripts according to rigorous standards. The name, Oxford, was once a quality control guarantee. What happened here? Peters, Ted (2019). "American Cosmic: UFO's, Religion, Technology". Theology and Science. That was for jps' request for sources at FTN, but thought the quote appropriate here. fiveby(zero) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In21h

I gave them a ct alert a little while ago and see you gave a second after mine. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that. I wish there was a better system that would identify this. jps (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lobster-eye optics

Lobster-eye optics is a very short article that wouldn't take up too much of your time. I could really use your help copyediting it, or at least an eagle eye from someone familiar with X-ray astronomy. My goal is to pass this as a DYK, but various issues have cropped up on the DYK nomination page. Note, I'm the reviewer, not the nominator. If you have any time just to glance at it, that would be appreciated. For what it is worth, my primary goal is to make this article readable and understandable to the average person visiting it from the DYK blurb. I think it's close to that goal, but I don't think it's quite there just yet. If there's a way you could help copyedit it for explanatory power and clarity, that would be great. I was hoping not to bother you, but I'm at my wits' end with this. I feel like I'm running into a brick wall trying to simplify the prose. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I read it and read the DYK discussion, and I think it's pretty close to being fine. I'm saying that as someone completely unfamiliar with X-ray astronomy (but of course a scientific background). We have tons of physics-related pages on Wikipedia that I find far less comprehensible. If you'd like, I can give it a copyedit. I'd also like to suggest not using an image with the DYK hook. If that works for you, I can get to it later today, or tomorrow at the latest. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Please also expand your reasoning for not using the image on the review page, so that others can see it. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do. And if jps will also look at it, that would be good. (By the way, I think the editor who nominated the page has been remarkably friendly on the DYK page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It reads just fine to me! Kinda a niche topic, but that's not surprising. Good job! jps (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a few things I still don't understand. Why is it important, for example, to capture so-called transient events with an X-ray telescope? The literature assumes that the reader understands this. As one example, Camp et al. 2015 indicate one use is to do X-ray follow-up after gravitational wave detection and short gamma-ray bursts. Shouldn't the article mention how and why it will be used and what it will detect? Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I just found all the answers to my questions on a now deleted NASA website archived by the Wayback Machine. What's weird is that I couldn't find this answer elsewhere: Answer follows: "Camp said the instrument would be able to detect transient X-ray emissions from a large portion of the sky, giving scientists an unprecedented view of black-hole mergers, supernovae, and even gamma-ray bursts in the very distant universe. Transient X-rays are now difficult to detect because these sources brighten without warning and then vanish just as quickly. He also believes the instrument could work in conjunction with and even extend the sensitivity of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), a National Science Foundation-funded experiment that has searched for gravitational waves since 2002. Gravitational waves, first postulated by Albert Einstein, are faint ripples in space-time that theoretically happen during massively powerful events, such as black-hole or neutron-star binary mergers. Gravitational-wave detectors don't localize well. Used in conjunction with the focusing Lobster detector, however, scientists would be able to zero in on the location of the source, Camp said....Just as exciting, Camp said, is how he could use the technology to detect ammonia leaks. Anhydrous ammonia runs through tubing connected to huge radiator panels located outside the space station. As the ammonia circulates through the tubing, it releases heat as infrared radiation. In short, it helps to regulate onboard temperatures. Possibly because of micrometeorite impacts or thermal-mechanical stresses, these lines currently leak." Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Transients are all the rage regardless of the type of EM radiation in which they occur. While there are target of opportunity campaigns on many x-ray telescopes, monitoring for transients cannot really be done with narrow field of view unless you're really lucky. jps (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Right; didn't I read that there were spherical detectors that could detect in almost any direction of the sky, or is that something planned for the future? Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Like this?[27] jps (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the literature is murky. I assume it officially never saw the light of day, but ahem. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

X-ray astronomy has been in something of a dark period for some time. They're still hurting from the cancellation of Constellation-X. Long live ATHENA! And, at slightly lower energies, fly UVEX fly! jps (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harold E. Puthoff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Just in case you were unclear about this. jps (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ජපස. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kardecist spiritism#Requested move 28 February 2024

An editor has requested that Kardecist spiritism be moved to another page, which may be of interest to you. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested Moves

It is not cool to move articles except through the formal requested moves process. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Olive branches

You can keep offering P-Makoto olive branches... But as long as you continue to hold positions they disagree with they will just continue to spit in your face. Been there done that, sorry its that way. Wish it wasn't. Hope they know we all really do care about them even though we disagree. Do you know of anyone who might be willing to act as a mentor? I don't think they will accept help from anyone they've already interacted with but perhaps someone they perceive as a neutral could get through to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

She and I haven't interacted much before now, but I was encouraged when she talked about changing topics. That might be a good way forward. But I don't expect that my advice in anything will be wanted right now. I'm going to take the long game approach, but, to be clear, I do understand where your concerns are coming from. jps (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:MUTUAL at ANI?

This all just happened at virtually the same time, but after I saw this Special:Diff/1213598963 technically not TPG-compliant edit, I decided whatever and just removed my comment Special:Diff/1213599753 and was wondering if we can now just WP:MUTUAL remove your reply to it Special:Diff/1213600134, because it's not worth creating another "branch" in that discussion over this point IMO, better to try and keep the thread from spiraling outwards too far. As a bonus I won't have to explain at ANI that the initial comment was changed after my reply, which would create yet another branch. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. This is a simple software glitch and your proposed solution looks absolutely fine to me. jps (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm confused. Maybe best to keep things as is and put a note to this discussion? It's not clear to me this was a glitch. jps (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

lol, sorry, I just removed it. It's not a glitch, take a look at the history you'll see the sequence of very rapid fire edits: she read my reply, replied to it (kind of a one liner), retracted the reply, then edited her initial post (to clear up the issue I had raised). She should have done the strikethrough thing but this is just a noob mistake. So I figured I'd remove my reply rather than point out the noob mistake. While all this happened, you were clearly writing your response and (I assume, as it's rather obvious) did not see what had transpired. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. It's hard to know what to do at this point. I'm not certain she actually understands what hypothetical means. It's weird to stay that angry over a hypothetical. jps (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may, think of it like this: suppose a Mormon, or Evangelical, or a Dawkinsian atheist, or whoever, had said to me, "now imagine for a moment if you became a cisgender man—unlikely, sure, but just go with me!" The hypothetical couching wouldn't make me feel better about the implication that I'm wrong about who I am or could be. Being Mormon and being trans aren't the same thing; but from all I've read, for those who stick with them, religious identities can be felt and held very strongly. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. But is the issue then one of "becoming" instead of "being"? Like if someone had said, "Imagine being a ..." is that somehow less upsetting? jps (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll put it this way, if you remove your comment and my response, that is fine for WP:MUTUAL. But I think the post still has real WP:CIR vibes even with the edit. Sorry, trying to keep on top of lots of this stuff is getting pretty hard. jps (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! I think I retained your CIR-related comment? Take a look at the page/my edit and if you think what I took out should be put back, feel free to put it back. Sometimes discussions on Wikipedia are like trying to dance on a train car rolling down the side of a mountain, sorry I keep stepping on your feet. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine User:Novem Linguae hatted the whole thing which is probably for the best. This is such a perfect storm of awful. jps (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

stepping away

I just wanted to let you know that I have some off-wiki work I need to attend to for a few days, so I will not be responding to some of our ongoing discussions right away. I care about continuing conversations with you, but I think a few days of emotional distance could be helpful for me. I'm encouraged that you are able to discuss some sources with other editors over at the Ammonihah talk page. You might find it useful to track discussions and their conclusions on the perennial sources list for LDS topics at Wikiproject Latter Day Saint movement (it's a work-in-progress). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikibreaks are almost always a good idea. I am always open to conversation. And, just to be clear, I am absolutely not opposed to discussing sources with you. I'm not sure I'm enthused by the local consensus at the perennial sources list at the WikiProject. I might ask at RSN if they think it is a reasonable one before thinking about whether this was the best route. jps (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Catholic source example

Hello! This is a bit afield of our Ammonihah discussions, so I figured your talk page might be a better place for it. As I've said, I'm worried about creating an unworkable standard or chilling effect for religious sourcing in general, but I also agree with your concerns about "walled garden" scholarship that isn't meaningfully scrutinized.

I think it would be helpful to talk through a specific non-LDS example: The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology [28] contains a chapter on the Trinity written by Emmanuel Durand. Durand is a professor at the University of Fribourg, which was founded by Jesuits, and he's a member of the Dominican Order. Would you consider this more-or-less analogous to Oxford publishing Grant Hardy? Would you consider this a generally reliable or generally unreliable source, and for what kind of statements? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are intending on using that source for. Trinity (Christianity)? I see no problem with using that source for sentences like, "The Catholic view of the Trinity is..." especially because the dogma is easy to verify due to Catholicism basically having had loads of other sources connecting to this source. Unfortunately, I don't think the LDS church works the same way in the sense that they don't bestow imprimaturs and the like to ensure that the person opining is not going "off script". Mormons excommunicate, but they are also not wont to be strict in what is canon and what isn't contrary to the Catholics. I think all we can say with Hardy is that this is what he believes as a practicing Mormon. Which may, to be fair, be good enough, but I don't see any way around that kind of particular attribution. jps (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

You have repeatedly engaged in egregious, unprovoked incivility towards me. You have now added casting aspersions to BATTLEGROUND. You accuse me of POV pushing for providing a basis for why I disagree with you. Stop now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

(Jaguar padding by...) I am uninvolved in the topic and the discussions. In reading through those discussions (here and here) it seems to me that you, @Pbritti:, are perhaps reacting too personally to the opposing views expressed by several editors, with those reactions verging upon WP:OWN behavior. Because the consensus in those discussions seems unlikely to move in favor of your POV, I suggest that you drop the stick now and move on to something(s) else. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Describe, exactly, how this is reacting too personally. Describe how disagreeing with an editor who was reverted by multiple other editors as well is OWN. If you can't then don't throw out aspersions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Pbritti, I see evidence of you POVPUSHING and OWNing the article. I am not trying to impugn any personal motives onto this. This is the result of your actions. If you can't see that, that's a problem, in my opinion. jps (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reacting in a personal/ownership manner seems self-evident at those discussions. But rest assured that I will never again try to help you avoid unproductive discussions, or worse. Speaking of which, if you truly believe that anything I have written qualifies as an aspersion, go ahead and take me to ANI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Explain exactly what POV I'm pushing and how I'm pushing it. Saying there is evidence and that is self-evident is peculiar—I'm merely asking you to cite your sources. Right now, the only person to express explicit POV is jps, who has declared some scholars unworthy of consideration because of their religious identity and others weirdos for using scholarship published in reliable sources. I wonder if you are attempting to impose a POV based on your own beliefs. The lack of self-awareness is palpable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The apologetics POV about the Massacre of the Innocents. You are insisting on including unreliable, religious sources that argue, contrary to all others, that there are sensible arguments for why it may have happened. Those are profoundly weird sources you are demanding Wikipedia use. jps (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a wiki-friend of both jps and JoJo, and I also was in a content dispute a long time ago with Pbritti where we were able to get along very well together and appreciate one another's differing positions, so after seeing this thread I decided to look at the discussions at the article talk page, and butt in here. I think it's reasonable to treat apologist sources as representing a particular POV, rather than using them for statements of fact. But I also think that point can be made on an article talk page without saying nasty things about those sources. So I think jps may probably be right on the merits of the content (or at least I would agree with him), but I would urge him to dial down the language about "bullshit" or "baloney". One doesn't need to use that kind of language to make the point about the sourcing issues, and it's exactly the kind of thing that is likely to get oneself blocked if the dispute escalates to somewhere like ANI. So I'm sympathetic to Pbritti's concern about how other editors are talking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

When I see a paragraph lovingly sourced to a Young-Earth creationist arguing that an event for which there is no evidence actually occurred, I think WP:SPADE indicates that it is bullshit and baloney. In the spirit of On Bullshit and Baloney detection kits I don't think WP:CIV means we have to be kind to sources. jps (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, such sources are not reliable sources for saying that such an event took place. I agree with you that content should not be sourced that way. And I doubt very much that the sources even care what you (or I) think of them, so I'm not worried that you hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair critique. However, I also get the impression that the critique often doesn't go the other way, where people aren't taken to task for being sensitive about those who level harsh critiques against their favored sources, but maybe I'm just being a sourpuss. jps (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Please understand that I say all of it in a spirit of trying to help, including helping you steer clear of things that could later be used against you. In case you don't know about it, ArbCom recently enacted this principle, which got a lot of favorable attention, and is something that admins are likely to be attentive to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You are reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero^talk 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."