Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 24 May 2015

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mann jess,

On Talk:Macrobiotic diet, user Ds13 said “Cheers” to me for removing Category:Pseudoscience. Apparently he/she supports removing said category, an edit which you reverted.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... no they didn't. You placed your comment right in the middle of their discussion, which took place over 8 years ago. . You managed to break up their comment in the process, too... not that it matters all that much, since the user has been inactive for 2 years.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone! Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

Why are you changing psychokinesis. Psychokinesis is NOT telekinesis. Telekinesis is a TYPE of psychokinesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigs1111 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you're asking. In regards to this edit, your addition messed up the entire page, making sections of the lead bold and changing the first sentence into a garbled mess. That's ok; this sort of thing happens, but we have to undo changes like that to make sure our pages are legible.

As for the substance of your edit: many sources use telekenesis and psychokinesis interchangeably. Some others discuss telekenesis as a subset of psychokinesis, and we discuss that in the article. See the subsets of psychokinesis subsection. If you have any other questions, feel free to drop by the article talk page. You can find a link to it at the top left corner of the article. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey man is telekinesis and psychokinesis really the samePigs1111 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. When you're responding to a comment, try to put it at the very bottom of the section you're responding to. So, to respond to this comment I'm making right now, put your reply right below it. Does that make sense?

As I mentioned above, telekenesis and psychokinesis are said to be the same thing by some of our sources. Other sources say telekinesis is a type of psychokinesis. On wikipedia, we just report what our sources say... we don't make decisions about the subject on our own. So, we report that the words are used interchangeably sometimes, and also report that one is a subset of the other in some cases. That's the best we can do with the sources we have. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha so did you have it ment for interchangeably because I can add sources. Pigs1111 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are usually helpful, yes. Take a look at what I wrote on the article talk page, and we can move the discussion there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a source on my wal. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you erasing sourced & valid content?

MJ,

I can't help but notice you have received previous complaints from other contributors whose content you erase and change. I have added relevant material directly quoting the Bible, citing original Greek, citing several English translations, to the New Testament section of an article called "The Bible & Slavery". You have reverted my edit twice and a third revert will automatically block you.

Rather than engaging in an editing war, would you like to explain what your contention is, besides personal disagreement, and substantiate your editing with New Testament references? Are you a New Testament scholar or Bible expert? I will revert your edit again. Below is my contribution for your reference:

The New Testament never uses the Greek word “sklabos,” the equivalent of the English “slave,” because it had not yet been coined by the time the Bible had been completed. Instead the New Testament uses the word "doulon" to refer to a hired servant or employee, as distinguished from a boss or employer. This distinction is consistent wherever the New Testament lists two economic classes: slave or free.

The popular assumption that New Testament slaves had the same status as European colonial slaves is a linguistic error and a historical error. English translations of the Bible use the words "servant" and "slave" interchangeably. The Gospel shows such a servant was highly valued and in today's language would be better called an "employee". Compare three English translations of the Gospel of Luke chapter 7 verse 2:

   King James Version “And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.”
   The New English Translation “A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death.”
   The New Living Translation “At that time the highly valued slave of a Roman officer was sick and near death.”

The attitude of the employer and Jesus Christ towards this servant contradicts the assumption that he had the same status or experienced the same treatment commonly associated with racial or colonial slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCardleDavis (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi McCardle. Welcome to wikipedia. I've been editing wikipedia for many years, and I'd be happy to point you to a few of our policies which address the content you'd like to add. Most importantly, the bible is what's called a primary source, which means that it can be used to quote itself, but not a whole lot more. Interpretation from a primary source is what's called original research - something all editors must strive to avoid. We very strongly prefer secondary sources on wikipedia for that reason. I'd be happy to discuss the addition with you at the article's talk page (Talk:Christianity and slavery). If you know of secondary sources which address this topic, why don't you bring them there and we can figure out how best to incorporate them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

MJ, By what you're saying the only thing that should have been edited out is "original research". Why then did you erase PRIMARY SOURCES (3 Bible translations) and SECONDARY SOURCES (a Christian author citing Greek original word for slave is not the emotive and colonial "sklabos")? There's a point where editing becomes policing of thought and outright censorship of viewpoints you don't want others to read. Are you not violating Misplaced Pages policy by erasing primary BIBLE QUOTATIONS and SECONDARY SOURCES? The one line I agree you could "disqualify" by your standard is the last sentence. Let me know what you still disagree. NeutralPower 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCardleDavis (talk • contribs)

Saying a source is primary is not a point in its favor. Quoting from WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source." We cannot interpret parts of the bible ourselves without a secondary source, and that's what was being done.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of rude

To close the discussion especially when you are involved in a content dispute. I know you are kind. and you will reconsider. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I said there were two possible outcomes of your behavior, and you're edging towards #2. You can reject the advice of experienced editors all you want, but it will only result in you being ignored and then blocked. Have at it, I guess.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is asking questions requests for more opinions ----regarding the use of a reliable source is a reason for blocking someone ?. Why is this against the policy ? Just wondering. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking the same question, and ignoring the input you receive, is tendentious editing, which is grounds for blocking. You have received input from 10 separate editors by my count, and your response was to open a new section to ask the very same thing. That's disruptive. You won't be blocked now, but you've started on a path that will lead you there. That's unfortunate, but it's your call. Speaking of rudeness, ignoring 10 other people who are trying to help is "kind of rude". All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile

Hi i jst wanted to knw hw to edit by mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam mahaseth (talk • contribs)

Hi. I've never edited on my phone, personally, so I'm probably not the one to ask. However, you can check out WP:MOBILE for some suggestions. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Had 3 sources, someone deleted them, anyway I'm retiring from this page till the holidays, I have a lot of science homework.Gudzwabofer (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the right decision for now. I get that this issue is important to you, but I'm not "your enemy"; my goal is to improve the article too. Come back when you have your school responsibilities out of the way (that's the priority!) and we can discuss it more. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

I would like to revert the article to the last stable version. Edits made by User:Swamiblue were disruptive and the user was blocked for edit warring for pushing in their controversial changes. An administrator asked me to wait to revert to a stable version. See my talk page. This would also undo the unverifiable and out of context changes introduced by User_talk:69.172.85.34 who is also adding controversial changes to the article and has just come out of a block. You can check the edit History of the article itself to confirm and the talk pages of these users. The current state of the article is not at the last stable version. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. I haven't really looked into any of the content, and have no stance on which version is better. My only involvement was to address the disruption by the ip. Thanks for letting me know, though! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism

Why does the article "Criticism of atheism" warrant defense of atheism whilst there is no material defending Islam on the "Criticism of Islam" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

I can't comment on other articles, only the ones I edit. However, as I explained on Talk:Criticism of atheism, the article is intended to cover all aspects of the topic. It is not List of criticisms of atheism (which, actually, would even still require some discussion of the criticisms). We don't write articles as "attacks" and "defense", we simply try to summarize the sources on the topic by including all significant viewpoints with respect to their prominence in the sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

naturopathy

yep i wrote a sharp comment and then removed it. i get so sick of people not actually reading what other people write and responding to that. i have no idea what you thought you were responding to, much less who. sorry for swearing at you. i removed it because i regretted it. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read your comment before replying. This stood out to me: "the heart of is common sense mainstream medicine today...where naturopathy goes wrong from the mainstream perspective, is trying to treat serious conditions without medicine... our article is pretty heavily WEIGHTed on the latter , and maybe not enough WEIGHT on the former ." I don't know you, or any other editor personally; I can only respond to what I read. I understood that blip to mean one can reasonably practice naturopathy in conjunction with mainstream med, and that we should consider adjusting the weight of the article to provide more emphasis on that perspective. Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but the meaning is very clear to me as a reader. Hence my reply: the "heart of naturopathy" is not just "common sense mainstream med", it is loads of other claims, and the perspective that it could be practiced a certain way should not influence how we assess due weight. I think you significantly misread my post, which was not an attack on you (in fact, I expected you would simply agree with me... my only aim was to clarify, so we didn't start down the wrong path). Anyway, we all make mistakes, and read too much into things sometimes. No worries. I appreciate you posting here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

you misinterpret what i wrote yet again here. bummer. thanks for accepting my apology, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you may have meant something different. I'm not making an active effort to misunderstand you... I'm just reading what you wrote as best I can. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something obvious... I just can't see any other way to interpret your words. Sometimes it's tough to communicate certain ideas. Who knows. I don't think it really matters right now. If this ends up being important later, we can hash it out more.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Precognition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Price (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Genesis creation page edit

Hi Jess, I have removed William Blake's art because it is insulting to those who believe in the God of creation as told in Genesis. Using Blake's art on this page would be like posting a Nazi original piece on a page about Jewish culture in Germany. A better piece of creation art would be one painted by a believer of the subject being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.158.73 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the message. When there is disagreement over content on an article, the best place to go to discuss it is the article talk page. You can find a link to the article talk page by clicking the "Talk" button at the top left of any article. Before going there about this issue, I'd encourage you to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Misplaced Pages does not censor content based on it being offensive or insulting to any group... we simply try to present the most accurate information we can given our sources. If you have any other questions, direct them to Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and I'm sure an experienced editor would be happy to help you out. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My Page Tom Sandow

Thank you Jess for communicating with me. My page is well listed by Google etc but if I tap in Tom Sandow on search it says 'not listed'. How do I become 'listed' on Misplaced Pages? If you could explain I would be lost grateful. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.13.144 (talk)

Hi there. Misplaced Pages has requirements for what we call "notability". You can read about them here. Basically, to be covered on wikipedia, a topic must be covered significantly by reliable sources. As an example, I'm not notable, so an article doesn't exist about me (despite being on tv and in newspapers several times, I don't meet our notability guidelines). If you think an article should be created about a subject that is notable, check out WP:Your first article. You'll have to create an account to create new articles, or you can submit an article to WP:AfC for someone else to create. If you are hoping to create an article about yourself, you may want to read WP:COI, and I would suggest asking another editor to create the article for you to avoid any conflict of interest. If you have any questions, feel free to ask an experienced editor, and check out the WP:Teahouse. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

		The Bio-star
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Excellent Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Outstanding Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I never thank you for this, @Drbogdan:? I thought I did! Oh well, I appreciate the kind words. Thanks for your contributions to Talk:Abiogenesis and the FAQ! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Hello Mann Jess,

I will leave more than one quote.

Many scientists DO NOT consider at least some elements of parapsychology, as a pseudoscience.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201401/is-there-scientific-taboo-against-parapsychology

I will dig out some really good quotes, and classically trained, western, establishment scientists to back this up.

Neo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.213.240 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The place to discuss sources is the article talk page. That being said, the source you've proposed here actually backs up our current wording, by detailing that the scientific community completely rejects parapsychology. The source goes on to argue a novel position, that this should change. I don't know, maybe it should, but it's not wikipedia's place to evoke change; it's our job to simply record how things are right now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Thanks for giving your name.

I have just read the comments by other people on this forum. They are extremely RUDE.

I will make a YouTube video about this and make it VIRAL.

Does Misplaced Pages (or some other "establishment") pay you some dough for guarding the gates?

This is going VIRAL...

Neo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.213.240 (talk • contribs)

Ok, have fun with that I guess. If you want to continue contributing here, you need to read WP:WEIGHT. We are required to present information in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, and on the topic of parapsychology, the preponderance of sources describe it in a certain way. Our coverage must reflect that. If you have sources indicating otherwise, you should propose them on the article's talk page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WLC

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment article edits

Hi, please take a look at the Talk:Ganzfeld experiment, we can discuss the recent changes there. Larch150 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the edit is an improvement on several fronts, but I had a few concerns which I've tried to address. BTW, just as a point of reference, when you introduce new content and someone reverts it, the best course of action is to go to the talk page (like you did - awesome!), but also leave the new content out until it can be discussed. No big deal in this case, but it does help collaboration quite a bit. Anyway, I posted to the article talk page and made a few changes. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation – I am new to Misplaced Pages. I again posted to the talk page, and I am not sure if you get some kind of reminder (because I refrained from editing this time), so I am posting one here. Larch150 (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent work on William Lane Craig making it more comprehensible. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've appreciated your contributions there, too! I'm glad we've been able to make some progress! Keep up the good work!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Greetings! It seems to have been hectic at Acupuncture for the past few days, and I've tried to catch up with the discussion the best I can. Anyway, you reverted my edit with an Edit Summary of "This directly contravenes consensus about this edit on the talk page.". I've read through the Talk Page, but I may have missed the consensus over this matter. Could you kindly point me out where this consensus has been reached? Thanks!

Best Regards, Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jayaguru, no worries. I'm going to be out most of the rest of the day, but briefly... this issue has been discussed in some depth in several sections, including here and here, as well as numerous more general discussions in the archives. Several editors have expressed significant concerns over that very specific edit, which are based on sound policy considerations (like WP:WEIGHT). I think reasonable editors could disagree about the state of consensus as either 1) there was consensus against the proposed addition, or 2) there was no consensus for the addition. I don't think a reasonable reading of the discussion would lead an editor to believe there was consensus for the addition, so adding it back in without first seeking consensus would be a mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to fall into category #2, but if so, the right course of action is more discussion, not more controversial edits. You're right that the page has been a storm recently, which is unfortunate for everyone involved. More level-headed discussion is the best way to resolve that. Thanks for reaching out to me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, no hurry. There's no WP:DEADLINE. But yeah, I agree. It has indeed been quite a storm there recently. Actually, I don't think I fall for categories 1) or 2), but for category 3): I am completely clueless here. I thought that I've followed the discussion pretty closely, but the discussion just keeps going on and on. Honestly, I think all the arguments have been said already and now we are just going though a grand recycle of those. In my ideal world, when everything has been already said, the discussion would just cease down naturally and the discussion could be easily concluded into a new consensus.

Anyway, for that reason I am not really quite sure where the consensus have been reached. The discussion is vast, so I hope you understand if I am asking you if you had some diffs more specific. Well, let me first have a look at the diffs you gave me, so ... there's no hurry really, especially now after the article got full protected now :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Innapropriate hatting of discussion

You recently hatted a discussion on the Talk:Acupuncture page. WP:Hat is very clear on this. "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." You are an involved party. I am therefore asking that you self revert this closure.DrChrissy 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Meta discussion about the removal of talk page content expressly prohibited in our guidelines will not improve the encyclopedia. Seriously, take this to the appropriate venue. I've already pointed you there. That article talk page is suffering from severe bloat as it is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you really been reduced to "ignore all rules"....well....I am speechless.DrChrissy 01:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's funny... I wrote a few paragraphs with basic advice, because based on your editing pattern, I figured you were a new editor just learning the ropes. You've apparently been here since 2011 with over 11k edits. That new perspective is refreshing, because it means I have no compulsion to help you learn our policies - you know where they are already. Phew! So allow me to adjust... Your behavior is tendentious, and has the appearance of intentional disruption. Whether or not you intend to be disruptive is irrelevant; if you don't change your approach to editing, you will end up sanctioned. If you're not familiar with pseudoscience topics and our application of WP:FRINGE, you should become accustomed to it before wading in further. This topic is different than other areas, I assure you. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Accupuncture

Please see discussion. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indenting

Please be cautious when adjusting the indenting in a discussion. Your edit here at AN/I re-WP:THREADed my post and CambridgeBayWeather's post, placing them in such a way as to indicate (incorrectly) that I was replying to a post by DrChrissy, and that CBW was replying to my post. (This would be particularly strange, given that my comment was written, posted, and signed before DrChrissy's.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was finding the conversation almost impossible to follow as written, with comments all over. A series of edit conflicts tends to do that. I figured I'd try to fix it so it was legible, and if anyone had an issue they'd revert me. Of course, feel free to move your comment wherever you feel is appropriate - sorry for the trouble!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I think I fixed it. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Stud!

Hey Stud,

Thanks for the message! I appreciate and respect all you do best believe! I did want to take the time now to let you know I feel this was a mistaken removal. Dan Quinn IS Maitreya! I know this shocks a lot of people but he has it on his stomach! Best believe in this! Thanks for listening and if you will please correct the mistake! Be well!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CA0:350F:919C:D40E:9C99 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Global warming skepticism and climate change denial

Hello. A heads up in case you have innocently run into this particular WP buzz-saw: many of our colleagues have very strong opinions about the appropriate use of such terms and do not consider them interchangeable. Anthony Watts seems to be something of a ground zero for this dynamic. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the notice! I appreciate it! While I haven't edited his article previously, I'm not new to the topic, so I do know what you mean. If it comes up again based on my edits, I have no problem discussing it, but using the most common terminology from the academic literature should be fine. Thanks again - hopefully I'll see you around in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the academic literature uses the terms interchangeably, sometimes within the same article. There are people who don't like that. In the interest of harmony perhaps the best solution is to put "skeptic" in scare quotes, thusly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the word "skeptic" throws up red flags for me right off the bat, because it is the word used in a PR campaign by "climate change skeptics". Given that, yes, I suppose there would be usage of "skeptic" out there on the net, since it's the label they've promoted. More significant to me is what impartial academic sources use to describe the topic, and my understanding has been that "climate change denial" is more common among those sources. I could be wrong, and I'll spend some time researching this in the next few days. Perhaps that will change my perspective. To be honest, I'm not really looking forward to wading into a new perennial discussion, but here we go... Thanks for the feedback!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

feel ya! Thanks for the refs. I have used most of them to improve the article. Any way you could share the Critical Policy Studies by Dieter Plehwe? It looks interesting. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

It's been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. This is clearly a WP:FRINGE POV. The vast overwhelming number of sources don't use this term. Per WP:WTW, we are not supposed to use this term unless widely used by reliable sources. And I hate to remind you that the burden of proof is on those wishing to restore contentious BLP content, not the other way around. Let's just follow the rules, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1) The sources that matter are the most reliable, and most reflective of the academic consensus. That means a book by Mann is more significant than an article on the Guardian.

2) We have a large list of reliable sources which back up the wording proposal. I haven't seen any that contend Mann has not characterized the blog in this way. I also haven't seen any that contend it isn't what he characterizes it to be.

3) It is not a fringe POV that Watts Up With That? is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. Your usage of "climate change skepticism" means the same thing with different words. Your concern (as you've expressed it) is not that the content is fringe, but that the language we've used is inappropriate. That doesn't qualify as fringe.

4) Yes, this has been discussed to death, and if any consensus has resulted, it has been that the content is reliable and appropriate.

5) Your version of the article fails to reflect the mainstream scientific opinion regarding Watts' views, which is, itself, a WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT violation.

6) "Climate change denial" is not a word to watch. "Denier" is. Climate change denial is the common name used to describe a subject this blog is known to espouse. We are not saying "Anthony Watts is a denier". We are saying "Mann has characterised his blog as the most prominent website about climate change denial on the internet", an opinion which is widely held.

@A Quest For Knowledge: We've worked together positively in the past. I don't know what's led up to this disagreement, but I'm looking at it with a fresh perspective, and your approach is pushing it towards being intractable. Editors who would agree with you on this issue also by and large would support keeping out any mention of the scientific consensus about climate change, and representing Watts' opinion unchallenged. You are siding with those who would advocate for climate change denial, a fringe and pseudoscientific view, and that's a side I'm not familiar with you being on. If things continue in this direction, it looks like we'll be needing more formal means of dispute resolution. Right now, the article is a massive fringe and weight violation, and it can't stay that way.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe that you have misread the situation. The key issue here is what do reliable sources say about this topic? Or to put it another way, what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? Nobody is disputing that Mann is reliable source (or at least I'm not). But we don't look as sources in isolation. We look at the totality of sources. And even when using Google Scholar, the vast, overwhelming majority of scholarly sources don't use the term "denier". There is no "large list of reliable sources which back up the wording proposal". There's just a small handful.

What I am saying is that the term, "denier" is a fringe term because the majority of sources don't use this term. We should follow the majority.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. I have no interest in disputing the scientific consensus about global warming. What I am taking an issue with is the use of the word "denier", that's all. Will you work with me to figure out a way to add a link to the Climate change denial without using the term "denial"? I believe that Dave had a reasonable solution. Can we pursue that further? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing the word "denier". We're discussing the subject "climate change denial". Words aren't used in isolation, either. I'm fine with Dave's suggestion. I'm not fine with removing reliably sourced content, placing the article back in a state where it contravenes our policies. If you want to add Dave's suggestion, I'd be fine with that, but right now you're removing the single and only mention of the scientific consensus in the entire article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)0

There is already two WikiLinks to the Scientific opinion on climate change in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The only links we have are there because I added them today. Previous attempts to add them have all been reverted, including just today.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And despite the links I just added, there is still no prose indicating the scientific consensus. We were adding some, but it was reverted. The first link to scientific opinion on climate change is hidden in an uncontested fringe claim by Watts, in clear violation of WP:FRINGE   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions re climate change

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

Apologies if this has already been received. I searched but failed to find it on talk history, system log, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)