User talk:PaleoNeonate/Archive 5

Latest comment: 3 years ago by PaleoNeonate in topic User:Fomfeider/sandbox
Archive 1Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 9

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Another copyvio on Biblical criticism

I am beside myself. I went to nominate for FA and ran the copyvio detector and another one came up. [[6]]. On the front page they have typed in the date 2010, but the detector has been run on this article repeatedly since 2017 and never found this article before today. Is there any way to prove when it actually went online? It is almost a total copy of my article. Pleas help. This is completely beyond my ability to deal with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, got it taken care of. I hope not hearing from you doesn't mean anything bad. Please be well! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I've just been too busy to be on WP regularly because of work, which is fortunately not bad news, in a way.  Glad that it was confirmed to be an obvious copy, —PaleoNeonate14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as you and yours are okay I am happy you are busy. Take care Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Neil Ferguson

Your comments appear to support pseudoscience in violation of WP:FRINGE. On Wikipedia, reliable sources are required, not blatant quackery. Supporting such nonsense drags this encyclopedia into disrepute and you do not appear to be editing to build the encyclopedia constructively (WP:SPA, WP:HERE: you are not blocked yet but that is also a valid block reason). Thanks. Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arthur Sparknottle: Copying back part of my old comment here and readdressing it seems strange... Have you found reliable sources supporting your claims? We can't improve the article without such. Its talk page is where those should be proposed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate10:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
What? You want someone like The Times tell you Ferguson's a quack? I thought it was quite common knowledge? [7] Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a good start to support that his model had flaws (but again, the article's talk page is the place to make that point). Unless multiple reliable sources call someone a pseudoscientist or a quack, it would be another matter to rename the article or state so in Wikipedia's voice. In case you would like to try using standard WP procedures, requested move exists.
Another consideration was that urgent measures were necessary to flatten the curve so that health systems can hopefully cope and serve people needing ICU. Where I live it barely did despite those measures in April (and it temporarily was out of control at many other places, in New York and still is now in some US states where many people cannot be admitted and just die at home, I'm less familiar with the EU data, but I remember of the Italy and Spain crises and that some more remote places like Finland have been less affected). Also consider facts like that essential services that continued to run, like meat plants, also faced concerning contagion rates and needed to reevaluate their procedures to help... —PaleoNeonate18:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Adding, because it may be relevant: I'm not sure for the UK, but on the American continent there used to be well funded groups working on epidemiology and preparedness for future epidemics and pandemics. Unfortunately as their budget was cut the new pandemic surfaced. It's normal that they had to continue using the established science they had about previous virii incuding influenza and that like science does, models are adapted as new data becomes available. All that takes funding and time. —PaleoNeonate19:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Books by Martin J. S. Rudwick

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Books by Martin J. S. Rudwick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's indeed currently empty so I won't contest it, it could be recreated if Draft:Earth's Deep History is eventually accepted at WP:AFC. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate07:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Human Genetic Variation: Lewontin's Fallacy

Hello, thought I'd share this: http://smallie.de/external/edwards_lewontin_fallacy.pdf

Just some food for thought. Msiehta (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Msiehta: Joe Roe already replied eloquently to this, it does not seem to be a usable source for Wikipedia (see WP:RS for more information). —PaleoNeonate09:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Just curious about what you think the reasons are for discarding the simulation hypothesis as impossible. Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Implausible is not impossible, but here are a few directions for thought experiments: assuming it was voluntary to make the universe or physics difficult to understand, it could have been made way more cryptic and impossible to grasp whatsoever. Assuming it was designed to be understood, it could be much simpler and we would have "mastered it". Assuming the impression of deep time was a voluntary illusion, there would not be that many consistent clues corroborating it. Assuming it was designed for the gratification of a creator, its existence and requirements would be much more obvious. Assuming that the goal would be to achieve intelligent humans, this contradicts the discovery that biological evolution is not directed (i.e. a-la great-chain of being). In relation to those perspectives, it's important to look at our own motives for contemplating that we live in a simulation.
Assuming it is really a scientific experiment simulating a real universe that was not originally a simulation, immense challenges are the energy required, resulting pollution and times involved, where challenges in the original universe running the simulation would also bring an end to the simulation (even if the "clock speed" of time in the simulation is illusory). For the simulators, the simulation must theoretically be fast enough to be useful, the slower it runs for their purposes the least useful and least plausible, including the work needed to gain support for such a project and to put it in place. A purely scientific simulation may still be less implausible because we could also assume that for technical reasons, or to preserve the integrity of the experiment, the complexity is "realistic" and there is no intervention/interference, or the least possible (and as we so far learned, none may have been necessary). Then there also would still be ethical issues, like the lack of intervention when it is understood by the simulators that they could benefit their "creation"...
Which raises other questions like, if it's a realistic simulation, perhaps their ability to examine what happens inside is extremely limited, and the requirements to keep running it faithfully forbidding any potentially disastrous intervention (back to the question of utility and feasibility). We could imagine infinitely more intelligent and powerful beings, computers and energy sources than we'll ever know, but we're still stuck in fantasy and speculation, until we really meet it (like strong personal subjective "realization" experiences are interesting yet limited in their scope; people write books, movements form, that don't necessarily agree with eachother and have not explained the universe or even the mind satisfactorily, despite the temporary illusion of ultimate union and knowledge)... —PaleoNeonate05:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Earth's Deep History has been accepted

 
Earth's Deep History, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please

I hate to put you on the spot but I am in real need. I put Biblical criticism up for FA review a month ago. It is its second time being nominated. I failed to complete the process the first time because of leaving WP so suddenly, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunately impossible at current time, sorry. Since I rarely log in these days I've changed the {{busy}} template for a {{break}} one as well... As I don't personally try to bring articles to GA/FA/DYN status, it may be difficult for me to relate, but I can understand that unrecognized work can be an annoyance. In the event where the process fails again, I hope that if won't prevent you from trying to improve articles (the most important, ultimately, is of course for the material to be there for its readers). See you around later, —PaleoNeonate00:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem my friend, I understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey dude! Just checking in to see how you and your family are doing. Hope you are all well and staying safe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777, we're doing allright, thanks, although I don't see remote family often, we're currently in high/red alert with limited physical interaction (schools are still open as well as other essential services). It's even being debated if ~10 people Christmas meetings will be allowed, as the local health system is reaching its limit in this second wave. My immediate parents don't celebrate (for religious reasons) although some siblings do with their family, but the small rendez-vous we planned so far for the 24-25 will only be me, my gf and another couple, if we're all still healthy by then. How about you? —PaleoNeonate10:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
All our holiday celebrations are canceled. We are trying to get the vaccination but there is a very small number available here. I don't know how they are prioritizing people either. It's all so crazy. Sorry you won't be seeing people, but glad to hear they are well, and that you are okay too. I hope you have a happy holiday season, as much as is possible in the circumstances. It's not the first time I have had to choose to be happy in spite of circumstances and I'm sure it won't be the last, nor for you either. We can do this! Right?  :-) Stay safe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

 

Hello PaleoNeonate,

 

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
 
 
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Many thanks, same to you, —PaleoNeonate03:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

No images, fancy backgrounds or fancy code in those curly bracket things. Just a boring old plain text note wishing you a very peaceful Christmas season, and a Better New Year. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: thanks, it'll indeed be "more peaceful" than usual, even.  And I also hope about the "Better" part. Merry holiday, —PaleoNeonate06:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Crochety creations

@Dave souza: I'm not sure if it's back in fashion, but my gf actually also received as a gift a recent crocheting book, an interesting coincidence. And many thanks for the recognition in relation to creationism, it's especially encouraging from you, who I acknowledge also did impressive work in the area. Best wishes to you too, —PaleoNeonate06:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Eshed

You're such a weasel and a bitch Go WP:TAGTEAM 3RR yourself to death with your buddies Don't write on my talk page again Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bigbaby23: You may want to count the times you reverted and note that multiple editors objected to that material. You should seek consensus at the article's talk page or at the WP:FTN noticeboard. While I have no reason to pester you at your talk page (and blanking posts at your page is allowed), policy-based warning messages are exempt from no-post requests (WP:OWNTALK). As for namecalling editors, on Wikipedia these are considered personal attacks and are not allowed. I won't report you for a first offense, but you now know. —PaleoNeonate13:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS Talk! 19:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Empire AS: Many thanks, best wishes too, —PaleoNeonate10:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks :) Empire AS Talk! 10:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

C64 Lovecats xmas/hny demo (in case anyone seeing it likes it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fg0nRnZT5gPaleoNeonate16:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theory

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Jewish Communists

It was literally just a list of names, wikilinked to their articles. But when I listed it, Georgy Arbatov had nothing about his religion (added during the MfD, Gyula Hevesi which was red-linked as he listed the names in a different order, still doesn't. That one alone (red link) suggests he got them from some other site. But also see the issue raised on my talk page about him and his edits, in particular this one. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, not too promising so far... —PaleoNeonate21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

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

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

PaleoNeonate08:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flowcode again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, if a LTA, I'm not familiar with it and would not be able to investigate it before sometime monday. —PaleoNeonate05:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lukan27

You might want to read this [66].Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven, I think that I'll let others handle it, —PaleoNeonate19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist theology - suspicious activity

Hi PaleoNeonate, a new user caught my attention because of their second edit so I looked at the article's history and noted all the socking a few months back. From the SPI archive, it appears you were quite involved in snuffing them out so I thought I would give you a heads up given your familiarity. There may be at least one other account that raises some suspicion. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: Thanks for looking at this. The work at SPI seemed endless (new socks were always created including for temporary use and some sleeping ones), as I had less time to patrol many articles I stopped noticing this WP:LTA. At times when I thought I did, I sometimes wrote the nickname down to only forget about it. In case you'd like to put some time into it I'll provide a few clues: You're probably right that it's the same, in general when looking at the article history where the new suspect account edits, more will be seen to have edited the same recently. Nicknames are usually spaceless first/last names without a space. They usually promote apologetics using primary sources and restore work done by previous socks. Other tendencies are to convert citations to {{sfn}} with summary "to sfn", or to edit military equipment articles to get autoconfirmed and edit elsewhere. Sometimes new material is added to articles or redirects within HTML comments to not be immediately visible. So another suspect there would be JevonVo. New socks are created often enough, hoping to avoid scrutiny or to simulate a consensus and are abandoned or reused later. They used to also insert "theistic science" and idealism philosophy, criticism of science and materialism and to debate at creationism and evolution related talk pages but recently seem to have maintained a lower profile hoping to instead keep the same material in fewer articles, mostly Adventism-related. At SPI, when the checkuser is experienced enough, they may discover various other sleeping and/or abandoned socks when handling a report (unfortunately, Bbb23, who was very helpful there, semi-retired). When confirmed, all edits are usually reverted as possible per WP:BE. I hope this was useful, —PaleoNeonate03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I had Pastachio nuts

... and combined them with some dry roasted peanuts in my food processor, to make cool nut butter. Like the topic above, I am transfixed by the question in the above post, that it may not be a good idea? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 01:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about dogs, but I remember seeing a squirrel eat some peanut butter and struggling with its stickiness. PaleoNeonate06:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

previous user name

Hello, you left me a message in my talk page. I responded but I don't know if you receive notifications for it so I am writing to you here. My previous username was Schmuels. I created it some years ago in order to create a wiki page in English [ I wasn't sure if I could or should do it with my Hebrew Wiki username which is this one- Schmuel]. So now I see that Schmuels is deleted, but it is written as a source of some edits that I made. Is it possible to change that to my current singular username Schmuel ? Thank you--Schmuel (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I wanted to ask: I created a page about a year ago in Hebrew, with a new scientific principal that I created, which is related to Occam's razor. It is called "Fresnel's razor" https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%9C. Do you think it is a good idea to translate the page and create an English wiki page for it? Thank you--Schmuel (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Schmuel: Since I did not add your talk page to my watchlist and that you didn't use the {{u}} or {{ping}} template I indeed received no notification.
In relation to your username question, at some point global common accounts were created that can be used with all Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia in all languages, Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, etc). Your current account can be used this way. The old account that was specific to English Wikipedia was automatically renamed with an ~enwiki suffix added. Your current account is attached to several projects and indeed has he-wiki edits (Special:CentralAuth/Schmuel) when the old one only has some edits on en-wiki (Special:CentralAuth/Schmuel~enwiki). Since the new account has more publicly visible contributions I suggest to just keep it and abandon the old ~enwiki one. Some information was posted at User talk:Schmuel~enwiki including the possibility to Special:MergeAccount, since both are your accounts. Other special account-specific procedures are WP:RENAME and WP:USURP.
For the new article, en-wiki has the notability policy (WP:NOTABILITY), so the page is likely to get deleted unless the topic can be demonstrated to be notable (has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources and can be described according to cited sources, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:CITE may be useful). A trick is to start finding/listing independent sources. To avoid WP:SYNTHesis, those sources should also directly be about the topic, not only subtopics that the editor ties together into a new concept. When patrollers discover new pages, even if it's an incomplete article, they're less likely to request deletion if the citations to verify its notability are already listed. Also see: WP:USERSPACE (notably WP:ABOUTSAND), WP:DRAFT space and WP:AFC that can be used to submit new articles for review. —PaleoNeonate05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Schmuel (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DRASTIC

The paper in Frontiers in Public Health "Lethal Pneumonia Cases in Mojiang Miners (2012) and the Mineshaft Could Provide Important Clues to the Origin of SARS-CoV-2" that is currently being discussed on the RSN cites "DRASTIC" which apparently stands for "Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19" which appears to be a loose collective of twitter users, including some researchers who push the "lab leak" conspiracy theory. this tweet by the lead author of the paper Monali C. Rahalkar indicates that she is also associated with DRASTIC. DRASTIC is also cited in the acknowledgements of The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin in Bioessays and A Washington Post editorial from the 5th of February (different from the one discussed last time). This is probably something worth bearing in mind for the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow I come back with 6 notifications... Thanks, I checked RSN just before as well as some linked archives, interesting. —PaleoNeonate04:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeonate, I read your message about my contribution and I am not sure why is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia, as long as it contains a topic related. More than that, the link posted before is outdated and is not even working. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiguu (talkcontribs) 13:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Smiguu, my concern was because your previous edits also inserted low quality references in various articles before without adapting the text to fit the new citation. On the other hand, I see that they're not always the same so I admit that it's not necessarily classic spam. If the intention is to rescue sources, perhaps that they can be recovered via archive.org, the various {{citation}} templates support parameters like |archive-url=, |archive-date=, |url-status=... It's also possible to sign talk page posts using four tildes at the end of messages: (~~~~). —PaleoNeonate14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You added a DS message, not a GS one

at User talk:Azahariev#Important message.

I was reading the draft-covid lab thing AfD and I warned an editor there about an edit about you. Looking at their edits, they seem to know an awful lot for a new editor. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks for reissuing it, —PaleoNeonate01:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

At the MfD

Messed up a ping. See this. I won't object if you re-instate the comment (this was a bit of IAR on my part anyway), but asking nearly every person who !votes keep whether they've been canvassed or not is mildly counter-productive, and simply because they've possibly been canvassed does not make their opinion invalid (better: rebut the opinion concisely). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This shouldn't be removed normally (see WP:TPG), and I don't think there's any non-repeated argument that'd I'd post instead. But I won't edit war, —PaleoNeonate02:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said it's just that the discussion has run it's 7-days and it's unlikely to change the results. Of course, as I said, if you think I was wrong to ignore TPG you're free to restore your own comment, though really I think we've all gone beyond the call of duty to rebut the attempted canvassing, so best we just let it die its natural end, which is at the business end of the delete tool of an admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

23:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

16:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

 

Thank you for what you said for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And thanks for the thanks, it'd be sad if he doesn't come back, —PaleoNeonate22:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in DS Consultation

Hi PaleoNeonate. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

16:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

SENS procedure

Hi, thank you so much for chipping in with the SENS threads: I was starting to doubt my sanity. With this morning's update, I've become convinced that ThunderheadX is Not Here, but I've never filed at ANI and am dreading doing so—I feel like I've already been in a knock-down, drag-out fight. Do you have any recommendations about how I could proceed, or if I should just let it go? —Wingedserif (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wingedserif: You're welcome, I sent them a clear warning today since without a recent enough warning an ANI report might not be taken seriously. We'll see, but if they persist and noone does, I can file the ANI report. I agree with your assessment IRT NOTHERE and I'm sure it's obvious to other editors as well. —PaleoNeonate03:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. closed AE thread

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

AN thread

Hi, Paleo. Re your comment at AN: please note that your first two links are to whole archives. Readers can find what you're referring to by a search for the relevant username in those archives, but will most people bother? Maybe you want to complement the links, like this: [98][99]. Bishonen | tålk 08:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC).

They indeed lack anchors. I had the impression that there might be more than one thread so posted the page directly but will recheck, thanks. —PaleoNeonate13:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Does the topic ban mean Gtofolletto can't discuss the topic in an AN thread about the topic ban? That doesn't seem correct to me, but if it is, I'll withdraw my question regarding what kind of edits he wants to make to the UFO articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie: Good question, the policy is WP:TBAN and WP:UNBAN, TBAN makes clear it belongs everywhere but doesn't tell about the appeal, UNBAN doesn't give much details but I suspect that it's allowed for the appeal. The clarity could probably be improved so it's less left to common sense... It's not rare for siteban unblock requests for an editing plan to be requested, I'm not too sure about topic bans, honestly. Since many appeals occur at AN its archives would also help IRT common practice. I'll ping Bishonen in case she knows better, —PaleoNeonate13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I admit I'm merely applying common sense here, but of course he can discuss the topic in an appeal of the topic ban. Discuss it in a way relevant to the ban, that is; for instance, answer questions such as yours, LuckyLouie. His discussion must not segue into interminable arguing about the topic. But even if it does tend to do that, he shouldn't be blocked for topic ban violation, but warned about it (unless and until he's intransigent about it). This is because it's obviously hard for him to know where the limits are. We do need to make it reasonably easy and "safe" to appeal a ban; it mustn't give the user a feeling of walking dangerously on a floating mat, with a risk of drowning at every step. Bishonen | tålk 15:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

15:42, 3 May 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) 22:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear PaleoNeonate,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration

To: PaleoNeonate

From: Sychonic

I appreciate the comment you posted on my talk page, and thought I would respond here as well as there to have it reflected in both places. You wrote:

"Maybe this custom message would help to explain some of the previous difficulties instead of the common templates. I've seen the claim that collaboration on WP means that it should present an equal balance of opinions from the diversity of its editors. WP must however present the view of reliable sources instead. It's also part of collaboration to follow common procedures like bold-revert-discuss (consensus, for more information). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or free speech and its talk pages are also not discussion forums. Valid criticism as presented by sources is also acceptable in articles per WP:NPOV. "

The concern that engendered my recent comment on the administrator page ("The Blocking of Sychonic") related to my being blocked for a short time as a penalty for "edit warring". This resulted from my edit being reverted, and my subsequent restorations of that edit. I felt those restorations did not constitute any form of bad faith editing, and that quite the reverse, the person so infuriated by my edit was motivated by bias and was attempting to spin the article rather than provide helpful information. My attempt at a fact-based description of the audit going on in Arizona related to the 2020 election results made user:JzG quite angry, since he has a quite negative and decided opinion against the actions taken by the Arizona State Senate Republicans. He has an obvious left wing bias, seems very concerned with American politics even though British (so says his user page), and may have some administrator status, I don't know about such minutiae of WikiWorld. He also has the resources and knowledge base to bring other editors in to skirt the letter of the rules, while I am quite the primitive in such things.

With that as background, your caution as to some folks believing that there should be a "balance of opinions from the diversity of its editors" is inapplicable. My entire point is that there should be a neutrality in point of view that is based in fact. It should not have a viewpoint of any kind. My point is that objectivity does exist and can be reached by the well-written article. Writing, words, can be used to reveal or conceal, to communicate or to obfuscate, and this is the issue that needs to be addressed.

It is broached with the use of the term "reliable sources", which raises the question -- what happens when the reliable source is no longer reliable? Major new outlets are now generally tendentious, and in places have become outright advocacy organizations. The New York Times for example, has extended its editorial position into its news articles and no distinction can be seen between them. I would suggest that a "reliable sources" does not come from having an established name any more, but rather the content of the article in question. Is it fair? Does it skew the information in an irresponsible way? Does it omit basic facts? Is it even true?

The most recent display of an outright falsehood posted by the NY Times is the case of Officer Brian Sicknick, the U.S. Capitol Police Officer who died shortly after the Capitol Hill Breach on January 6, 2021. The NY Times reported that he had been "murdered" (a word I saw repeatedly after their new story) by someone after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. It turns out the officer died from a stroke and had not been hit in the head and showed no signs of any blunt force trauma, and in fact talked with his family after the incident was over and said he felt generally fine. The NY Times grudgingly printed a retraction, but the story had been picked up widely and is still cited. Basic journalistic standards were not followed in that example because of what the NY Times has become, utterly political. Now this is not true across the board, and I expect the NY Times is still reliable in places, on some things, but it is a case-by-case test.

The same can be said of other news outlets, and this is not just my opinion, but has been discussed in detail, though not in the places where the problem exists, that being the Media outlets themselves.

Here is another example, just the first sentence on a report related to the events that were triggered by death of Winston Boogie Smith:

A "reliable source", as I assume the Washington Post might be called, started off its article this way:

"The family of a 32-year-old Black Minneapolis man is calling for transparency in the investigation of the man’s death after he was shot Thursday by members of a U.S. Marshals Service task force who were trying to arrest him."

An "unreliable source", as I will assume the Breitbart website would be called, stated it this way:

"Burning, rioting, and looting broke out in Minneapolis on Friday night after deputies shot and killed a wanted felon who fired on them."

It seems clear the unreliable source has more relevant information included in its first sentence than does the "reliable" source, which doesn't even mention the violence associated with the death, nor that he fired on the deputies, nor that he was a felon, nor that he was wanted by police. It is clear that the "reliable" source has decided to emphasize a certain view point rather than explain facts. One may argue that Breitbart in its lead emphasizes what it wants -- the rioting, looting, and burning, but all of those things are factually true, and pretty important in the basic story of what happened. Does the family calling for "transparency" really override rioting in terms of relevance?

This is my criticism of the Wikipedia policies. The collective administrator group seems unwilling to consider that the protocols, or at least their enforcement, have become outmoded, outdated, and badly in need of repair if any of Wikipedia's reputation is to be salvaged. I consider these to be "Valid criticism as presented by sources" as was mentioned in your comment.

Thanks again for your interest in the topic that I raised.

Regards,

Sychonic

Sych (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

 

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt, this reminds me that I should probaby rewatch the Baraka movie, a vivid scenery/music film displaying various manifestations of the natural human tendency to seek meaning in life and death. It also includes various time-lapse photography scenes, some of old, some of the accelerated modern world. Also a Hindu ritual funeral cremation scene at the deep music of L. Subramaniam. —PaleoNeonate02:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead, do it! - One such story: "What would you do if you knew that today was the last day of your life?" ... and after the answer, the next question: "And why don't you do it?" - He who asked didn't ask me, but it's with me. - Did you know the image of a Bali funeral cremation that I use when missing makes me furious? (... did you know that I nominated it for featured picture, and the answer was "not by this photographer", and he who said so also left a meaningful to Sarah, but I haven't yet thanked him ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I assume it was because of the ambiguous copyright status... Nice picture, —PaleoNeonate05:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

17:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Don’t accuse people for having agendas

Look accusing people of POV pusher is not a good idea. Look please understand the views I present are not something I made up.CycoMa (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the comment was at your own talk page in accordance with WP:ASPERSION, with the evidence the long talk page threads and repetitive attempts to portray science as supporting binary sexuality and calling various reliable sources propaganda, an indication of WP:TE. The goal is that you hopefully realize that others notice this and that perhaps you could acknowledge it too and move-on, before the patience of the community wanes... —PaleoNeonate17:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that I'm offering this editor much the same advice at article talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Look I go to reliable source notice boards on this a lot because I want information presented here to be reliable. If a bunch of editors tell me that a source I’m using isn’t reliable I don’t cite it and just move on. So it’s not like I’m using lousy sources for the claims I present.
Also some changes I made to certain articles caused no controversy. Like I removed certain sources from articles that I knew were problematic and conflict came from it.
Look all I want is for the information here on Wikipedia to be reliable.CycoMa (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

15:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

21:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

21:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Read-only reminder

A maintenance operation will be performed on Wednesday August 25 06:00 UTC. It should only last for a few minutes.

Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).

For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!

20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, always better than "7 days"! [Humor]PaleoNeonate08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

15:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

 
 
New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello PaleoNeonate,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

 

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.


To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting you to visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies and inputs and expansion help for the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Fomfeider/sandbox

Thank you for reviewing my user sandbox. It's cool when someone explained it on my talk page. What do you think about my sandbox? Is it accurate or wrong? Please leave a message on my talk page about how you think my sandbox is turning out! Fomfeider (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fomfeider: that IP user's post was indeed nice. Your sandbox summary also is, the only point I would stress (that was also mentioned in the other editor's post) is that nothing is black and white, selecting proper sources can often be challenging especially on some topics. It's also something we always keep learning about, the WP:RSN noticeboard and its archives (and WP:RSP) help. Some other source-related links that come to mind and may eventually be useful: WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, WP:FRIND, WP:PARITY, WP:MEDRS, WP:CRAPWATCH (the latter is an archive of questionable sources including "predatory" journals). —PaleoNeonate00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)