Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:26, 27 August 2013

Clean slate

Rather than doing the traditional thankspam, I'll just thank everyone who participated in the WP:AN-related discussions, regardless of your opinion, here.

jps (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding parapsychology (again)

Not sure exactly how any other existing sanctions might apply beyond the block itself, but it is good to see you back.

To perhaps clarify some of what I said before, I personally very much believe it would be in everyone's best interests if you could gather together the lists of articles in the reference books you mentioned, maybe following the formatting of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Articles in print reference sources#The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, which I just completed. I do think that, in general, for a lot of the topics which do not receive much coverage even in reference books, like those which have, perhaps, two paragraphs or less in one of the more highly regarded reference sources, there probably isn't that good a chance those articles in general will ever be created, whether they are on such a list or not. They would be, kind of clearly, the "lesser" topics regarding that major topic. But, it might also raise the chances of creating, for instance, a "List of Bigfoot hunters", either as a separate article or a section of another article, and list those groups which are counted as such in reference books. From what I have seen, in a lot of cases, that minimal mention of these lesser topics might be enough basis, in at least some cases, to forestall any developing a full, stand-alone article. So in at least that sense having the most comprehensive coverage of a topic in a few articles may well prevent the creation of sometimes really dubious spinout articles on various smaller subtopics, given their inclusion elsewhere. I think I have actually seen that happen in a few cases already. So, if you want to get together material regarding what is covered in those sources, please feel free to do so. Even if you are remain banned from the topic, I don't know, I think that maybe AN or somewhere might have no objections to you getting together such non-problematic lists of sources and what they cover if asked.

Also, good luck in general. If there is any point where you think I might be able to help in some way, on the comparatively few days I actually actively edit these days, feel free to let me know and I will see what I can do. But lists like the one above really take a lot of time to make. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, it is a good idea to go through the referenced encyclopedia to see if there are any glaring omissions. If I get a chance, I'll be sure to do that. jps (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of characters.

I get that you wanted a fresh start, but why did you have to pick such a long string of random letters/numbers? I think "QTxVi4bE" would have been just as good. bd2412 T 20:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I did offer to shorten it, but I guess the renaming bureaucrat didn't care. I do like the "glaze over effect", though. My general hope is that people will stop referring to me by the name of the user account. Josh or jps will work fine. jps (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

chosen to avoid meaning: did you consider Kurremkarmerruk ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the name that never ends. Yes it goes on and on.. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much meaning, Dr. Connolley. Too much meaning. :) jps (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in Misplaced Pages:Username policy which prevents its use. Usernames "…can be virtually any string of characters (subject to a few technical limitations). However, it should be a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project." Regarding WP:UNCONF, as QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV uses "jps" as signature and links to his userpage in the sig, I don't see an issue. This is especially true as the history of the user's names is prominently linked on the userpage, so basic confusion is ameliorated with a few clicks, and address/pronunciation is irrelevant as "jps" is very easy to use. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There are 2.09*10^34 usernames with the same number of characters, enough to let all the inhabitants of 2.9*10^24 planets with the same population of Earth edit Misplaced Pages. Now 10^24 happens to be the upper range of the estimate of the total number of stars in the visible universe, so usernames like this may become typical in the future when we've colonized the entire visible universe. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What a bright future we have :D — ΛΧΣ 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, people are liable to call you QT now, which might be a tad off-putting when you sound it out. QTx doesn't sound a whole lot better. Unless, of course, that was your intention.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Though it was not my intention (I used random.org to generate the string) I certainly have no problem if people want to call me QT if that's what they want to do. Can't I be a cutie? jps (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey there,

I'm sure you're sick of hearing it already but just wanted to congratulate you and say welcome back. I don't think you and I ever edited together but I'm familiar with your work and needless to say we share a similar distaste of pseudoscientific POV pushing. Unfortunately the discourse on many of our controversial science articles has deteriorated to the point where even honest mistakes by newbies are harshly chastised by the hardworking but very frustrated scientifically minded people who have had to explain the same points over and over again to a seemingly infinite pool of misunderstanding (and on the scientific side there's isn't much new blood). I myself have severely reduced the amount of time I spend on the subject if only to keep my blood pressure down and other familiar names are gone as well (OrangeMarlin for instance).

My hope is that with your new lease on Wikilife you'll be able to add an aura of rational discourse to some of these topics instead of the incessant rule quoting we're all prone to sometimes. Lastly, as is common, when people are pushed they generally push back harder and so a problem I've noticed building over the past few years is that many of our fringe-related articles now make statements stronger than most scientists would feel comfortable making. I don't have any diffs handy but keep a look out and I think you'll find many inductive inferences being stated with language that paints them as deductive necessities - a subtlety that is generally lost on those who lack knowledge on the philosophy of science. Anyway, happy editing! Nformation 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Believe you me, I am no fan of rule quoting after getting out of purgatory. I think that there is a problem with amateurism in some of the fringe subjects, and I may share some of the blame in that. When I first started editing parapsychology, I was not aware that, for example, the protocols of many parapsychological experiments are actually better than those used in subfields of psychology. Though, this sad state of affairs reflects rather poorly on psychology rather than being something for parapsychologists to hang their hat on. Many people have the mistaken impression that pseudoscience is characterized by a problem with methodology. While this is sometimes true, far more often is the instance where a pseudoscientific claim is based on something other than empirical data. For example, while the methodology of many academic parapsychologists is fairly above-the-board (though this isn't universally true), the fundamental problem with many parapsychologists (though there are a good many exceptions) is that they assume that psi exists before starting the experiment. Then Type I and Type II errors are much more difficult to avoid. So, yeah, I can see where you're coming from. We'll see what happens.

jps (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

This note is to inform you that the Science Apologist topic ban clarification request has been archived, with no action taken on the matter.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's mud in yer eye

At the recent AN discussion I suggested that a six month period of not socking was appropriate. Other voices carried the day, and now here you are helping WP toe the line. Let it be known that that opinion of mine was based on my appreciation of WP process, with no personal animosity intended. I don't believe we have ever crossed paths, but I'm sure I would enjoy hoisting a pint with you, trying out various traditional toasts such as...

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedural arguments at this website always make for strange bedfellows and enemies. No offense is taken by me at all. jps (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Word play of the day: Hone means to sharpen. "Hone a bit more clearly" is I think a situation that calls for "hew a bit more clearly". Hew means conform, or adhere to. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Right! It should have read, "hone a bit more cleanly". Thanks. jps (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war at Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Igloo is back!

We are proud to announce that Igloo is once again functioning. This message was sent by User:TyAbot for Kangaroopower, one of Igloo's current maintainers at 20:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC).

Notice about clarification request

I have filed a request for clarification which may interest you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)