User talk:ජපස

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

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

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

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

you're also putting your head in the sand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colavito pointed out that Loeb is using explicitly religious phrasings in some of his recent discussions about what he thinks "we" should be doing: [1] When seen from the same thinkspace as religious belief, I think I can begin to understand. Arguments over religion make the "vicious and bitter forms of academic politics" look positively pleasant, in my experience. jps (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස @Tryptofish @LuckyLouie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from UAP disclosure amendment passed in senate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

congressman question: do we have aliens?

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

REP: who has clearence?

IG: can't tell you that either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

c.f. [4] for those who are playing along at home. jps (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had done this: [5], but I've also done this: [6], reverting that redaction as inappropriate. As for the "bone to pick" referred to below, I had remembered BC's oppose, and I've been wondering about a bone to pick, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was lurking and trying to digest Taylor–von Neumann–Sedov blast wave, but the text in Vela Supernova Remnant cited to [7](~200 parsecs, ~680 yrs) should go? A footnote in jps's 2015 paper says the ⁴⁴Ti observation is unlikely. fiveby(zero) 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello ජපස, we need experienced volunteers.

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

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

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crucifixion of Jesus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BCorr|Брайен 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven't we had this discussion before? A UP is generally a good indication, but not a guarantee, of quality. And some UPs are higher-minded than others. Oxford UP, for example, publishers some pretty rank quackery in the form of Andrew Weil's Integrative Medicine Library.[8] Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this?[9] jps (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harold E. Puthoff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Just in case you were unclear about this. jps (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it would be helpful to talk through a specific non-LDS example: The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology [10] contains a chapter on the Trinity written by Emmanuel Durand. Durand is a professor at the University of Fribourg, which was founded by Jesuits, and he's a member of the Dominican Order. Would you consider this more-or-less analogous to Oxford publishing Grant Hardy? Would you consider this a generally reliable or generally unreliable source, and for what kind of statements? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please copy my statement to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've copied it to the ANI thread where this is being discussed. If you'd like to appeal at one of the other venues, I can copy a statement there as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to waste dramurgy with an appeal, but I thank you for passing my note along. jps (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[12]

Sigh. A few LDS Church scholars account for this apparent discrepancy by arguing that the Nephite calendar was a lunar calendar (354.37 days in a year) during that time period which equates to 582.12 solar years, and that the Lehi departure was just prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem circa 587 BC. The reference in 3 Nephi is referring to Lehi's first leaving of Jerusalem to receive his prophetic calling.^[1][2][3] This is Mormon apologetics full stop. The Jewish calendar is lunisolar. Do with that information what you will. jps (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ජපස. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 22:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry. I had gone on an e-mail diet! Replied. jps (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your changes have been reverted by three different editors. Let the dispute resolution process work on the talk page instead of editing against consensus. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPS, I'm glancing at Talk:Book of Mormon, and, respectfully, I feel like the way you have raised issues there is needlessly temperature-raising. A thread with the header Nomination for worst sentence, ending with You've got to be kidding me. Anyone think this is a reasonable sentence? could be changed to a sober, not-outraged commentary and still fulfill its purpose of initiating discussion about the sentence in question and expressing your own view. Every piece of prose and editorial decision you criticize has at least one author, and nothing is gained by upsetting them with choices in tone and framing (e.g. Hey, I get it. There is this approach going around in the Book of Mormon obsessed world that tries to read a lot of context into the work...) that don't substantively alter the content of your comments. If you're right, you're right; if you have a point, you have a point; if you have a useful discussion to spark, it'll be sparked—there's no reason to make the process any more inflammatory than necessary. Those are my respectful two cents as someone not involved with or knowledgeable in this topic area. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think tone policing is important in Wikipedia? jps (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Noleander and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Noleander clarification request, in which you were listed as an involved editor, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia a while and have dealt with a lot of zealous Latter Day Saints who genuinely come on here to turn this place into an apologetic site underhandedly. User:FyzixFighter is not one of them. He may have a clear LDS bias, but does a LOT of good work keeping articles clean. I beg you to give him the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time, patience and effort. Epachamo (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Just so you know: I have become increasingly concerned that there are ownership issues on many LDS pages. I'm not interested in chasing anyone off, but I don't appreciate knee-jerk reverts that claim things like "this has already been discussed" when such has clearly not been discussed. I have yet to see FyzixFigher start a talkpage discussion in spite of being more than happy to play the role of R in the WP:BRD cycle. And the brief interactions he does on talkpages stretch my WP:AGF really far. jps (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely ownership issues on many LDS pages. Without a doubt. As far as FyzixFighter's reversions, he does do a lot, sometimes as a kneejerk, but he also reverts the mob of people that constantly do things like these: [13] and [14]. For me anyway, I've found it worth the occasional disagreements I've had with him. Epachamo (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed protection could do a similar job. jps (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Liber OZ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to report you to WP:3RRN. You are in violation of that rule. jps (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are you. Skyerise (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]