Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 9 August 2022

ideologs

As a general suggestion, please don't use article talk pages to suggest editors are ideologs. I understand the feeling, as I can think of editors whom I feel are motivated by things other than producing a good, impartial article. However, going around saying that is both uncivil and even worse, could be wrong. It's quite possible where I see questionable motive they are actually acting in good faith. Anyway, such arguments doesn't make your argument logically or stronger better aligned with policy but it does make it harder to have a civil discussion. Springee (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

When the outcome is to promote one ideology over another, then that's the WP:SPADE that I see. jps (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lanza

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ToddyShake (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to investigate more but if it can help so you can, they have also edited some other apparent promotional pages including the very recently created The Okunoren Twins (by another user), so a UPE farm is possible... —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Another ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The user who filed the report failed to read the large bolded section telling them to advise you of them, so this is just a courtesy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable Behaviour.

Do not accuse me of 'ignorantly attributing these well-worn racialist theories to "black supremacists"', when I have specifically done exactly the opposite. Further, do not in future accuse me of advocating for a white supremacist position. Those who advocate for a white supremacist position are by definition white supremacists, and I consider this a very serious personal attack. If you find it difficult to rein in your passions on this particular issue and contribute to the discussion without tossing around vile accusations, I suggest you sit this one out.2407:7000:9BC3:C800:68D2:3A82:595B:DBDA (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are you? WP:ANI is thataway. Begone, troll! jps (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

sources

I agree with your last comment, at the noticeboard (and was agreeing with yours, when I last posted). As an example, Don Bluth would be an amazingly RS on the subject of animation and filmmaking, but on the subject of Disney, probably best not to put too much stock in his words. I felt the need to say this because I think you might find that example useful, and you're free to steal it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! It dawns on me that this might be a good supplement to the WP:NPOV/FAQ. jps (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Game Changers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the Double Post, and thanks for removing it

I apparently dealt with that edit conflict quite poorly. That's what I get for trying to dash things off quickly while at work. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem! jps (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:civil - Civility on the Pentagon UFO Video Talk page

Hi - could you please strikethrough, or modify your comments made to me so that they are more polite, on the UFO Pentagon videos talk page? Just the ones that are being discussed, and the ones that I have commented on. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think all comments are being discussed and you have commented on most of my comments. Can you be more specific with diffs and an explanation of what you find impolite? jps (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you strikethrough these comments you made. I believe they violate W:civil, on the grounds they are directed at me personally, rather than at the content of my arguments. Thanks

(1) The problem is that I question your ability to even understand the argument. I'm not convinced you know what parallax even is. You certainly don't seem to be able to spell it correctly. jps (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(2) Truth hurts, but WP:SPADEs are spades. This discussion has solidified for me that we will have to deal with your incompetence if we're going to make any progress here. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(3) What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether you even understand what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and you seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(4) The only word that seems to be messed up here is the one that is most relevant to our discussion. It seems pretty noticeable. In any case, this is not personal. This is a matter of questioning whether the person who posed this RfC actually understands the idea they seem intent on criticizing. jps (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

I am happy to refactor comments that users find uncivil under the conditions I'll explain here, but I want to be clear here that I firmly believe that WP:CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder (I used to have a splash notification at this page explaining that -- but the procedure got used so infrequently, I've removed it). My personal policy has always been to engage with people who find my comments to be uncivil and to ask them to explain why they find the words uncivil. A simple explanation of what you find uncivil about each of these four statements is all I need because I would like to keep the meaningful content for future records. Some users have offered their own rewordings that would make them feel better about the civility, but as long as your explanations for what you find uncivil are clear to me, I'll be happy to refactor. jps (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe they violate Wp:civil, on the grounds that each one of them is directed at me personally, rather than at the content of my arguments, I don't really want to have a big discussion about it, as its already been discussed at length at the actual page. Please strike them through. Thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If addressing you personally is the issue, let me try to refactor these comments to see if you would find the rewording to be less uncivil:

(1) The problem is that I question the understanding of the argument. I'm not convinced that it is understood what parallax even is. The spelling of the word is incorrect frequently in these discussions. jps (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(2) Truth hurts, but WP:SPADEs are spades. This discussion has solidified for me that we will have to deal with an apparent level of incompetence if we're going to make any progress here. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(3) What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether there is any understanding what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and we seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Diff

(4) The only word that seems to be messed up here is the one that is most relevant to our discussion. It seems pretty noticeable. In any case, this is not personal. This is a matter of questioning whether people actually understand the idea of a parallax error. jps (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Would this satisfy? I understand that you don't want to have a big discussion about it, but I find it much more useful for me to be able to hone my commenting skills if I offer a rewording as I don't share the same idea about this concept as you and I would like to be able to achieve the same rhetorical effect if possible. jps (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying, some of that is better, and some isn't. I don't really want to get in a prolonged discussion about this, as its been discussed enough. Please strike them through. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to replace with this wording, but I'm not a fan of strikethrough culture since I take the wiki-philosophy to heart. I'll replace the wording now, though. jps (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello ජපස:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Signature

Please update your signature to include a working link, per WP:SIGLINK. It's kind of a pain to have to go to the AfD history to track down the actual user. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But it does include a working link?? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see where the problem was: this edit apparently trashed your sig. My apologies. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The correct use of the English language

If you disagree with another editor about the phrasing of a particular sentence in an article — as a matter of English — and wish to resolve it, the right way to do so is by the common consensus of all editors; and not by private argumentation between two editors. (One man's elegant trope is another man's linguistid solecism.) Be that as it may, such argumentation is generally counter-productive.

Accordingly, if you have any remarks of that sort, please put them on the talk page that pertains to the article in question; not on my personal talk page, where they are contextually meaningless. That way, everyone can read what you have to say, and evaluate your contribution in context.Ttocserp 18:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This was two separate articles. When I see a pattern that crosses more than one article but involves one user, the choice is clear where to talk, in my opinion. If you disagree with my assessment, you can explain why, but there is a chance that you might agree with it. I cannot know for certain until I hear from you and there is no sense in starting two conversations when I am pretty sure one will do. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are mistaken, Ttocserp. If every nuance of style had to be discussed on article talkpages, we would never get anything done. It's highly unlikely that any other users would show up at, for example, Talk:Francisco Solano López, which was last edited in 2019, to discuss the kind of minutiae that you're concerned with. ජපස's note on your talkpage was polite and correct. You'd much better respond to him than make unrealistic demands for article talk discussion. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC).

@Ttocserp: I note in your last revert at Francisco Solano López that you make a good point. I did a search of Google Scholar as you requested and "treat for peace" does definitely appear, but far less frequently than "sue for peace". I can understand, however, the connotation is such that "sue for peace" is often considered an inferior position, but it certainly doesn't always mean that. Anyway, it would be interesting if there was some source that disambiguated the terms, but I have yet to find one. As far as I can tell, the two are used almost interchangeably with "sue for peace" being consistently more popular: . jps (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frithjof Schuon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nasr

Allow me to continue here our discussion about Nars’s article. Copy of our last discussion: Original text: "his "perennialist" or universalist perspective takes into account the essence of all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". Your text: "his 'perennialist' perspective is based on the acceptance of 'universalism'".The original text gives the reader clearer informations than the second one; the article "universalism" that you propose is too broad when a few words are enough. Thank you for your understanding. The original wording assumes that there is an "essence of all religions". Certainly Nasr and others believe that, but it is by no mean a fact. Therefore we would need to say something much more awkward if you want to keep an expanded vision of this text. Something like "his "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account what Nasr believes to be the essence of all religions, beyond what Nasr considers their formal particularities or their current state." That's a pretty difficult sentence to parse, in my opinion, but that would, minimally, be what we would need to have in order to comply with WP:ASF. Linking to universalism, I would argue, is fairly important for a reader who needs to see how those ideas are typically engaged -- even if that article needs improvement. - jps 12:00, 12 October 2021

My reply: thank you for your comments. Is the following suggestion neutral? "his universalist perspective, which is that of perennial philosophy, takes into account the common essence to all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". In my opinion, the link to perennial philosophy allows the reader to understand that “takes into account... state” is not Nasr’s opinion but an aspect of perennial philosophy, to which Nasr adheres. If you accept my suggestion, I shall ask someone to check my English, as it is not my mother tongue. ----Hamza Alaoui (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's better, but it still tacitly assumes that "the common essence to all religions" is something that is a fact rather than an opinion. You could write: his universalist perspective, which is that of perennial philosophy, takes into account what he assumes is a common essence to all religions beyond their formal particularities or their current state jps (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for critical review

I have created an article on coloniality of knowledge today. It's a start class article in my opinion and there is much to do here. I sincerely request you to have a look at it, if you have time, and make critical assessments (or even changes, if you think necessary) to this article. I am requesting you for this because I am not satisfied with certain wordings in the article (such as oppressions, suppressions, annihilation etc), which might attract WP:POV (I am not sure though). I couldn't do better as a non-native. I am trying to learn these things from you and others. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your writing is fairly good, I would say. There are a few turns of phrase which read a bit out of place, but it doesn't impede understanding. One thing I think may deserve considering is whether coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of power can be merged into coloniality, for example. It seems like there are a lot of articles which are discussing largely the same subject and could use a dose of WP:SUMMARY organization. jps (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections if other editors believe that merging the two would be better. Thank you for response. Mosesheron (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I just wanted to note that I've expanded the article a little more since my last comment, and I no longer believe that merging the two would be better, given the prominence of the subjects and the coverage in RSs. That is, of course, my own opinion; editors are allowed to make their own decisions on the matter. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Request strikeout of your comments towards me

Here you made an unsubstantiated claim about my ability to evaluate sources. Here you made an unsubstantiated claim against me accusing me of advocacy, point-of-view pushing, and having a single-purpose account. I want to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS and request that you either 1) strike out both of these comments or 2) immediately file a report against me at AN/I. If it helps you relax, I believe chiropractic is quackery, though I try to keep my personal beliefs from influencing my editing on Misplaced Pages. MarshallKe (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that our conversation warrants either of those actions, and I certainly don't think WP:ASPERSIONS requires either one. jps (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You've accused me of very serious misconduct. If I accused you of, for example, sockpuppetry and edit-warring, wouldn't you expect me to provide proof of those things? MarshallKe (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is serious misconduct yet. I think this is either concern trolling or incompetence. Neither of those is a particularly "serious" offense at Misplaced Pages. Unless, of course, you start to escalate the complaints which, it seems, you are on the path to doing for some reason or another.

The first step in having a problem with another user is pointing it out. I've pointed it out. Now, do you want to keep harping on it out of some commitment to an ideal WP society or do you want to drop it? I'm happy to discuss it here if you'd like, but our interactions don't make me too optimistic that this will be fruitful. jps (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss. Which point of view do you think I'm pushing? MarshallKe (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's okay, I think I already know which points of view you think I'm pushing, and you probably already know that I suspect you to be a civil POV pusher, as well, on the side of pseudoskepticism. We both suspect each other as attempting to upend Misplaced Pages's policies in favor of a specific point of view. The difference is you have been subject to sanctions for these violations and I have not. The thing about that WP:CPP article is that it's extremely conspiratorial in nature and abused by people who project their viewpoint bias on others. Every good action such as politeness, or perseverance, or scrutinizing a source is seen as just another part of the conspiracy. If we're all using the article to point fingers at each other, don't you think that's pretty unhelpful overall? MarshallKe (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that you are adopting a kind of "radical neutrality position" (by using the pseudoskepticism label you tipped your hand) which assumes that the status quo approach the users like myself take to sourcing on Misplaced Pages is problematic. In particular, you seem to think that we are unfairly mean to sources which we identify as WP:FRINGE and are violating our own WP:PAGs as a result. I have seen this sort of advocacy before and think that it is a fundamental misread of what is going on. But, worse than that, it seems to me that you want to take it upon yourself to be an advocate for unskewing Misplaced Pages in this regard. Thus, you make statements that try to align policy with the outcomes you would like to see happen. E.g., it seems to me that you want the source in question to be accepted as the highest reliability and unimpeachable source for the claims it makes. Rather than accept that others have criticized it, you hid behind a blinkered reading of the WP:MEDRS guideline to claim that somehow genre is all that matters in assessing reliability. This has historically been the kind of gaming I've seen others who have this sort of "radical neutrality" predisposition argue, so it feels familiar. If you think you're going to make hay with my account history, think again. It's not surprising you haven't been sanctioned yet. You are pretty new at this kind of advocacy. Maybe you'll drop it and that will be that. Maybe you'll keep escalating and we'll see you at the drahmaboards. jps (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you get me wrong. I don't see users like yourself as taking a status quo approach. I see myself as taking the status quo approach. Advocating WP:V, WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages's other policies is not WP:ADVOCACY. If being an advocate of Misplaced Pages's policies is misconduct, then I am guilty of misconduct. It looks like you're projecting while accusing others of projection, which is pretty disappointing. Not sure what you mean by making hay. As for escalation, I wouldn't mind it, as I'm pretty confident of the outcome. You accuse others of what you do yourself. I'm seeing why it's pointless to discuss this with you. MarshallKe (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, we obviously differ on "status quo". It is telling that you think you have a better handle on what the status quo at Misplaced Pages is than those with whom you've been lately squabbling. I take status quo to mean how things are actually done at Misplaced Pages. YMMV. jps (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

SI/GSoW

There's no need for us to go back and forth on that thread, we can let someone else have all the fun for a while. I think we just have clearly different views on the situation, and neither of us is going to convince the other. I'm a-ok with it as a source in most situations, and I'm not pro-woo, in fact I imagine we'd probably see eye to eye on most things. Sorry if I came across as a little heated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I am do not hold grudges on Misplaced Pages, so no need to worry about us fighting at all. WP:COI policy at Misplaced Pages is fraught because there are conflicting policies regarding pseudonymity that obviously make the entire thing absurd. Rather than playing wack-a-mole and encouraging people to go hide the way you think the GSoW are hiding (there is a bit of chicken-and-egg game playing happening here), it would be better if people actually approached this subject not from the WP:PUNITIVE lens that is bubbling over in ANI but rather from a question of what would be best for the 'pedia. I have seen a lot of people whine, "WHY DON'T THEY ORGANIZE ON WIKI"? I have seen no one try to help them figure out how to do that and if I were a member of GSoW, this entire experience would make me far less likely to want to organize on wiki. So even assuming as much good faith as I possibly can, I see your side of this debate as shooting themselves in the foot. jps (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've actually been saying since the beginning of the bruhaha () that focusing on GSoW was the wrong call, and that it should be handled on a per article, per editor basis. As the thread developed and I looked into more of the editing, and off-wiki writing, I came to the conclusion that there was a clear COI with one specific editor around the topic of SI. That's why I'm not pushing for anything to be done about GSoW itself, just for something on a single editor with, what I see, a clear pattern of COI editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, context does matter and the fact that it is all mashed up means that you are in for one helluva ride re: the entire mess. I'm happy to argue about your presumption of "COI" as well. I still don't know why you think I'm not conflicted. I don't see what is problematic about the claimed patterned behavior (adding references to SI looks like a great thing to do at WP), so... the question becomes for me, why are you pushing for a solution to a non-problem in a way that is likely to have a net negative effect on the 'pedia? jps (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you probably do have a mild conflict of interest, but what my major objection hinges on how, in her own words, one of her motivations is publicity. I'm not familiar enough with your editing to judge well, but I assume your editing is about providing the best cites, rather than promoting a journal or magazine. That's the break point for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of a claim of a "mild" conflict of interest, but I don't think you've considered the opposing position carefully here. If what Sgerbic was doing was inserting poor quality sources into Misplaced Pages, then promoting those sources would be a violation of WP:RS among other WP:PAGs. But that's not what she is doing, and so I cannot see how there can possibly be any problem. When I try to include high quality sources, in many cases this is done with the express desire to promote that source be it a journal, magazine, etc. We both agree that she wants to promote SI at WP. Where we disagree is as to whether that is a thing that is to be encouraged or discouraged. I still cannot figure out why you think it should be discouraged. What is your problem with promoting SI? jps (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

From my view, poor source or high quality source doesn't matter because it doesn't appear that she's promoting it as a source, she's promoting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople with the intent to get them mentioned in places that people are visiting. That is the difference. In a perfect world you, or your students, wouldn't have to add sources that you technically have a COI with, because other editors would pick up that slack. But as long as your aim isn't to drive traffic to the journal for traffic's sake, I can live with it. I don't believe that's the case with the SI situation, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. You are concerned about a distinction without a difference as far as I can see. I don't think what Sgerbic is saying is that she wants to drive traffic for traffic's sake! What she is saying is that she wants people to have access to high quality sources. That is what I think she has been saying for years and that is the interpretation I see. You are thinking that she's trying to, what, increase the coffers of CSI by editing Misplaced Pages? I think that's at best a tortured reading of these comments and it is about as huge of an assumption of bad faith as I've ever seen. jps (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes doing a (admittedly small) survey of your recent article space edits, as well as hers. Nine of her last ten article space edits were adding SI links and quotes. I looked back a ways in your, albeit more active, editing and didn't see you adding anything that I thought could have been a COI related source. I guess on this point we'll have to agree to disagree, because we clearly see things differently. I do appreciate the nice, civil discussion though. This is how things should be, even if there is disagreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree is fine with me. If the last additions of SI links and quotes were in any way opposed to WP:PAGs, I'd be worried. But I just look, and they're fine! Last time I checked, we are only concerned with things that harm the encyclopedia. I think she is helping the encyclopedia. So, I dissent! Cheers! jps (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Game Changers

Hello, please respond to this dispute thread in relations to the synopsis of Game Changers and thanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_Game_Changers RBut (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John F. Kennedy Jr.. 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. Sundayclose (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Be aware that you can slow-motion edit war without violating 3RR. That's exactly what you're doing. There is no more of a consensus to remove this ENTIRE section than there was the last time you did this. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you are on the wrong side of WP:CON here as per the talkpage of that article. You might want to consider WP:DTTR. jps (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't about who is right or wrong. Most "regulars" are aware of that, but you seemed to have missed that point. Please read WP:EW. And I usually don't template regulars, just those who refuse to accept that they can't act without consensus. Looking at your block history, it's clear this is not the first time you have decided that your personal preferences are more important than Misplaced Pages policies. I won't edit war by reverting you, but if you are reverted again I strongly suggest that you allow someone who isn't as hellbent as you on acting without consensus to decide whether it needs to be reverted. Otherwise we'll be discussing this at WP:3RRNB or WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and don't have specific thoughts on the content itself, but and it does look pretty clear that if someone reverts that content back in without talk page consensus, they would be violating WP:ONUS policy. It's one thing to simply remind someone about 3RR, but this recent comment is honestly circumventing normal consensus building. If someone wants to include the content, you need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. If someone refuses to do that and instead threatens ANI, etc. that's going to end up as a WP:BOOMERANG. This isn't an uncommon problem where multiple editors try to edit war content back in against ONUS policy while going after those attempting to enforce the policy rather than gain consensus though. KoA (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Again, edit warring isn't about who is right or wrong. You are selectively expecting others to get consensus, yet you declared consensus prematurely. You were a major participant in the discussion. If you wanted to determine whether there was a consensus, you should have sought an uninvolved opinion rather than declaring consensus yourself and reverting. This may be a moot point, but I'll repeat my caution that if the article is changed and you revert again without consensus, we'll be discussing it at WP:3RRNB or WP:ANI. You can't say you haven't been warned. Sundayclose (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You know that I wasn't the one who wrote the last comment, right? jps (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Sundyclose, this is a pretty good indication you're generating way too much heat and working very haphazardly considering I haven't been involved in the topic at all. You just got the uninvolved opinion you were just talking about, twice now, so I suggest stepping back based on the attitude I'm seeing here so far. KoA (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2021 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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 that 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’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?

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 proposal channel if that's what you need. jps (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)