User talk:Crossroads/2020, 2nd quarter

SPI

Since it was archived, I will reply here. This addition by Wng and then without any other edits, almost an hour and a half later, Libraryuser goes and cleans up after the user. There is no legitimate reason - except if this was an extremely prolific and abusive sockmaster - to change accounts to "clean up". Now, WP:MEAT requires "same behavior as another user in the same context". When they are modifying the material, that's exercising something later in the policy, independent judgment. Meatpuppet classification is only for those who don't exercise independent judgement. The broader context which will apply to these users is SPAs that may have been inappropriately canvassed (we have no proof). Neither of those are blockable offences alone. When a user comes to be unblocked, the burden of proof is on me to describe how the behavior was inappropriate to the point it needed a block. I can't see any way to justify that to my fellow administrators. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, the four diffs I gave at SPI show that, rather, Libraryuser331 added it first, then Wng4699 re-added the removed portions (but this time alone inexplicably did so with the wrong citation format), then Wng4699 re-added them again alongside other stuff, and finally Libraryuser331 cleans up the same content. And as I noted, their edit summary actually refers to an edit by the other account. I also noted how odd it was that these two accounts with no other interests both show up only 2 days apart. This never happens.

But, if you're still not convinced, don't feel obligated to debate me. In that case, maybe time will tell if more behavioral evidence turns up via more edit warring for their WP:SYNTH. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: ‎It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself

Dear Crossroads, Thank you for your input. You undid my revision 949728585 by stating: "...you are changing sourced information with no heed to the sources". True, however removing the word "accidental" from the beginning of the sentence does not change the citation or its meaning, but does reduce the limitations of the concept. So why is it wrong do remove it?

Also you said: "I doubt anyone has put forward purposeful environmental destruction as a possibility - why would anyone do that?". Do you mean why would anyone put forward, or why would anyone destroy? Either way both scenarios are possible even if some people don't know the reasons.

You also said: "and controlling your population into self-annihilation also seems implausible". Bostrom does say it 'appears unlikely', but it is well within the realm of the possible. For example I support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (consensual and through contraception).

You also said: "If Bostrom offers that, you will need to show specifically where". How would I do that without changing the whole paragraph i.e. the previous citations by other authors? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinatalist (talk • contribs) 08:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This is about this edit; and it looks like the Bostrom source being referenced is section 4.7 of this. If added, it would be cited as any other source.

The source whose text you changed likely said "accidental" or something like it, and allowing for purposeful destruction is not needed, but I guess that particular word is not a big deal. But referring to extinction via "population control" is. One offhand comment in a single paper does not mean it is WP:Due. The vast majority of sources don't consider this worth mentioning. Indeed, it makes no sense - Darwinian selection, genetic or cultural, will ensure those who believe sapient life has net positive value will outbreed those who don't. And I note based on your username and your attempt to add this in October 2018 that you may need to look at our guideline on the promotion of fringe theories.

Pinging DIYeditor since he also reverted you. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads thank you. With honesty and humility I admit that in 2018 I was testing the boundaries of possible "self" promotion. However I thought the response from that editor unsatisfactory and biased, and so this week I modified my edit attempt to make it as neutral as possible. You have now educated me with your reasonable technical points, and I agree.

However I would dispute that Bostrom's was an "offhand comment" i.e. casual remark. Unlikely does not mean not serious, and he had thought about this.

It is of course an effect of natalist bias that most sources don't even consider the subject. In your case and the previous editor's it 'makes no sense'. In my mind it makes no sense for an intelligent species to trash the biosphere to the point of self-extinction, yes the evidence is everywhere. You are right about the genetic selection pressure against antinatalists of course, but cultural pressure is far far weaker. After all, my parents were breeders but I am not. And in the age of Internet, global travel, mass education, feminism, and effective contraception, it is becoming far easier to escape this gravitational pull. Who knows one day it might just take off!

I see my username also influenced you. Would I get further if I neutered it?

Anyway let's spread memes not genes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinatalist (talk • contribs)

But the people who want to have children -even if that were 1% or fewer of the population - will eventually outbreed those who don't desire to. As for "trashing the biosphere", without anyone who can value it, there would be no one to value it, so what good is it really then? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

True there are always unreachables, but if the others could persuade them to only have 1 child per woman, they would go extinct anyway! (with a better life quality as population density improves). Or else somehow improve the level of suffering for all remaining life (e.g. via genetics). If they refuse that too, there is always the coercion option. If that sounds unfair, consider that the unborn are not currently granted the right to remain so.

I agree the biosphere is only "good" for humans (the lucky ones who get to fully enjoy it), but it remains a mystery to me why so many would destroy it when contraceptives and adoption would make for a cleaner and happier extinction. The search for signs of intelligence continues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinatalist (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

NoFap

Hello. Regarding your comment about editing of the NoFap page: "Certainly the views of academic experts are worth mentioning more than journalists" I do agree and there's plenty of research about Pornographic addiction. For example:

Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption by Simone Kühn, PhD and Jürgen Gallinat, PhD
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1874574

or

Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours by Valerie Voon, Thomas B. Mole, Paula Banca, Laura Porter, Laurel Morris, Simon Mitchell, Tatyana R. Lapa, Judy Karr, Neil A. Harrison, Marc N. Potenza, and Michael Irvine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4094516/

or

Gray matter volume differences in impulse control and addictive disorders by Małgorzata Draps, Guillaume Sescousse, Marc N. Potenza, Artur, Agnieszka Duda, Michał Lew-Starowicz, Maciej Kopera, Andrzej Jakubczyk, Marcin Wojnar, Mateusz Gola https://psyarxiv.com/qyem5/

and there's much more reasearch and I can link it to you if you're interested. Porn addiction is real and does real damage. Efforts to combat it are anything but outdated. Are efforts to combat tobacco addiction outdated? Maybe they were percieved as outdated back when even doctors recomended people to smoke. Please consider that. Have a good day. NoFapeditor (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we prefer WP:Secondary sources, and especially so on medical topics like this - see WP:MEDRS. We also have to relay the mainstream views, regardless of what we personally think and even of what future changes may occur in scientific consensus. The WP:Fringe guideline covers this. I note, too, that your 2nd and 3rd sources here are about people with compulsive sexual behavior. This is not something that people can just self-diagnose because of mere masturbation or pornography viewing. As for your 1st study listed, while they do find a correlation, they openly admit causation could go either way. Correlation does not imply causation. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright I have a good secondary source for you https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517 ; regardless of your views it is an interesting read
Here the authors interpret studies of the past and compare the results. They note that factors like smoking, obesity and drug use are not sufficient enough to account for such a large increase in the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions among young men in the last 20 years.
I think that including the following sentence to describe NoFap is a biased way to present the movement: "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic, outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals.".
While I am sure they were criticized, they were also praised by other professionals in the same fields. Here's a question for you: Would it be any different if the sentence read: "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have praised by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals." ?
It would have been also a factually correct way to describe the movement, but I think that the same people that are fine with the former sentence would deem the latter to be biased.
I do agree that this field will have to be researched more thoroughly as it is a new phenomenom, but the fact that it is included in the "pseudoscience" category implies a clear bias.

Also to address "We also have to relay the mainstream views, regardless of what we personally think and even of what future changes may occur in scientific consensus" The thing is that there is no scientific consensus on pornographic addiction as of now. Medical proffesionals remain in dispute over this topic as you can see by the conflicting medical studies and papers by various scientists.

However, I do apreciate that you're open for an honest discussion. NoFapeditor (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:Due. By far the majority position among secondary sources and professional authorities is that pornography addiction has not been proven to exist, and that masturbation is completely healthy. You can see this is the case when you look beyond the few cherry picked sources that NoFap points to. And no, I am not obligated to spend time linking them all here myself on my talk page, as though anything were being decided here. And I while I was open to this limited discussion, I do not see the need to debate this further here. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well you haven't really addressed anything I've said in my response. "Beyond the cherry picked sources" I provided you with a valid secondary source and you haven't commented on that. There are much more resources than the few I've linked. How does the general scientific community interpret the enormous increase in sexual dysfuntions in otherwise healthy young males over the last 20 years?
"And no, I am not obligated to spend time linking them all" I never said that you're obliged to link me anything.
You haven't also provided a comment on the biased sentence used to describe the movement. Also no comment on the fact that the page is tagged under "Pseudoscience".

And sure I don't mind at all bringing this outside of your talk page, just wanted to talk to you personally to clarify with regards to the biased edits on the NoFap wikipedia page. The movement is a support group for people that have problems with their pornographic use and masturbation habits. And even if it is not clasified as an addiction, the general scientific community does agree that there can be cases where pornographic use and masturbation habits interfere with the quality of someones life. Or do you argue that pornographic use and obsessive masturbation NEVER interferes with someones life? That there is not a single person on this planet that would benefit from changing their habits? NoFapeditor (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The good folks at Talk:NoFap have addressed these points. Not discussing it here anymore. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Source found in Sumata

Have you seen the information "sometimes known in the West as a pussyjob" in section Sumata? So why it's not a reliable source although it exists there before my first editing to that article? I just add definition of pussyjob to this section and to section Genital-genital rubbing AneHara (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:V, which applies regardless of what sources may or may not exist in some other article readers generally won't have seen. And it does not appear to be sourced there either. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

NoFappers

Hi User:Crossroads, Thanks for bringing my attention to the issue with sourcing on the NoFap article. I am sorry my edit summary was unclear. What I meant is that I was restoring the edit that User:Grayfell undid due to poor sourcing and I thought that the podcast interview would be considered a better source. Do you consider Thought Catalog to be a reliable source? Side note: I am not a proponent of NoFap and I find the movement bizarre, but I have been thinking that the Wiki article would be stronger if it identified by name some of the key proponents and social media leaders of the movement, such as GoldJacketLuke--particularly in the Demographics subsection. Part of the problem I'm finding is that the majority of info about these NoFap bloggers and YouTubers are from sites that are not the pinnacle of good journalism. I am finding it difficult to find reliable sources that have taken the time to discuss a movement that the majority of people consider dubious, unscientific, etc. Yet I feel as though some of those sources must still be good enough to source a basic claim like "GoldJacketLuke is a proponent of this movement." I would appreciate your sharing any thoughts on this, however brief, because I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia. (For context, I am doing my MA in the history of sexuality and my interest in writing about NoFap is because I think the movement has historical significance from a sociological perspective). Thanks! GreenVolvox (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough with the edit summary. Thought Catalog looks to be very blog-like with essentially no editorial oversight, so I would not say it is an RS. With NoFap, if reliable sources are not enumerating supporters, then we should not either. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

masturbation

Dear Sir, Wikipedia page is showing just one side of picture about topic "masturbation". There are many side effects of masturbation and Benefits of nofap (an elementary lifestyle of Brahmacharya) which are not comprehended in present Wikipedia page. I request you to edit this page linking with nofap and Brahmacharya. Samarthay manthanhub (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You would need sources that are reliable and secondary. Content must also be WP:Due; the idea that masturbation is harmful is WP:Fringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Hi! I noticed you sent me a welcome message. I was actually a Wikipedia user a long time ago so I know my way around. Unfortunately I no longer have the free time to partecipate on a regular basis, but I thank you nonetheless for inviting me. Lately I've been making some additions to the quantum suicide/immortality stuff, I've read way too much popular attention around the subject for my liking, both in negative and, surprisingly, positive and I thought it was useful to make clear what is the expert consensus on it. I've honestly not been able to find a single reputable philosopher or physicist who buys the idea, aside from poor David Lewis who apparently feared the cannot-die scenario. I'm thinking how to briefly introduce his position without scaring the ever-living bejesus out of anyone who might read. --185.205.11.234 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fleshing it out more. Yes, this is one of various topics on Wikipedia where certain ideas floating around in public consciousness differ significantly from what expert sources have to say. With regard to David Lewis' thoughts, per WP:Due weight, the views of tiny minorities don't necessarily need to be mentioned. Especially if later scholarship addresses it and argues against it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps fittingly, there are actually two physicist David Wallaces but the one who's worked on quantum mechanics isn't the same that is on Wikipedia. I agree with your indication of not including David Lewis' paper. The general idea (that the quantum suicide effect might apply to normal death causes) is already included in Tegmark's 1998 response, and there's no need to include the scary picture as it was refuted quite soon by both Tegmark and Wallace, and recently Aguirre: even if true, the worst you could get out of quantum immortality is an eternity under deep anesthesia. I've rummaged pretty much through the whole literature on the subject, and frankly as I said I've not managed to find a single source that could be quoted on Wikipedia supporting the concepts. Even on social media, the vast majority of philosophers and physicists who've been asked to comment on the issue have been strongly dismissive. So, overall, I think that the article as it stands now is well representative of the consensus in the field. My last edit is to remove James Higgo's archived page in the external links section. I've done some research and he was just an amateur thinker who toyed with the idea in the late 90s, after reading about it in a mailing list (the Everything list, which apparently is still active after more than 20 years!), before he tragically passed away in a plane crash in 2001 (or did he?). His private webpage really does not meet criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. So I removed it. Jacques Mallah's article on ArXiv, on the other hand, should remain as 1) it's a published article, albeit from an independent researcher as far as I've been able to ascertain (he seems to be a medical physicist from what I garner, he was a participant on the Everything list as well) 2) he explains pretty well the measure issue (which in my view kills the whole idea beyond recovery). --185.205.11.234 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's funny that there are two David Wallaces who are physicists. Good catch. Maybe that's why the Everettian one is used to the idea of parallel universe doppelgangers? There's also the two Sean Carrolls in academia - the Everettian physicist and the biologist. With the Higgo site, that's fine. I was on the fence about it before. With Mallah, yeah, I think that makes a good external link. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added one last source to the article, Peter J. Lewis. He's the philosopher who first introduced the quantum suicide experiment in philosophical circles in 2000. I wanted to include at least a critic of the MWI, plus his book provides a nice quote to end the article. There is a mistake in his analysis (the chapter about immortality is luckily included in the preview of Google Books), where he compares quantum suicide with a Star Trek transporter in which one observer enters, and one observer and a puff of smoke come out. The actual comparison would be: two observers enter, one observer and a puff of smoke come out. Still, his conclusions are correct. There are other physicists and philosophers who've spoken on the subject, but mostly on social media or in books I couldn't find on the Internet (Scott Aaronson and Allen Stairs blogs, Alastair Wilson and Toby Handfield's books) and without really adding new ideas. --185.205.11.234 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be at a good length now, and it covers all the points it should. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the article on Quantum suicide and immortality. I'm fairly satisfied with the result, let me know what you think.--185.205.11.234 (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks again for your work. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You should learn the rules of wikipedia before falsely accusing an editor of WP:EW, i did not break the three revert rule, so next time I will report you for false warning. Now on the Pedophilia you removed an entirely different section on demography without any explanation just to suit your personal views. Nothing forbids addition of statistics as long as they are well sourced. Please refrain from such vandalism in future or you will be reported and may be blocked. Your edit will be reverted in 24 hours when three revert rule expires unless you can properly explain such vandalism. Respected Person (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Denying edit warring and yet threatening to continue edit warring tomorrow. That's a new one. Anyway, my talk page watchers can go and see for themselves. [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 06:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not made any threat, its you who made a false threat above about watchers. They can see edit history themselves, it seems like you have no idea of the three revert policy or the 24 hour wait rule. Also what you did removing well sourced content is vandalism, yes they can see themselves, but I strictly warn you to learn WP:EW rule before falsely accusing someone. The demography was a separate section, you blindly removed it, it will be restored. Let watchers see themselves, i have been editing wikipedia since the same time as you and know the policies better than you. Never warn a user of WP:EW unless the three revert rule is broken. I suggest you to read WP:EW since you have no clue about it. Respected Person (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Hope to see you around

Thank you for your words. I can't claim to have deep knoweldge in either the cosmological multiverse (although I do have an interest in interpretations of quantum mechanics and philosophy of science more in general) nor in the transhumanist movement, so I unfortunately do not think that I will be making substantial edits in those fields. I stumbled upon a hilariously bad paper on quantum immortality by a transhumanist extremist, which went along the lines of "quantum immortality enhances the chances that us smarties who have arranged to get frozen upon (or even before) death will be revived by a friendly God-like artificial intelligence and will have pleasant life everlasting, while the heatens outside our little cult will suffer horribly for all eternity." It was a lot of fun to read, especially considering that the author looked like he believed every last bit of it, but while I am aware of both transhumanism and the Super AI crowd, I do not know enough about these kinds of subjects to make effective contributions. You are perfectly right that the many worlds interpretation receives far more consideration in popular science representations and science fiction than in actual physical discourse - indeniably, it lends itself to colorful scenarios and the basic concept is both easily explained and superficially interesting to most people: after all, who doesn't think "what if I had done this instead of that"? There are people in the field who have turned many-worlds evangelism into their own little cottage industry, selling books and accruing mediatic visibility by pushing said basic concept as fact, conveniently glossing over the incredibly complex, highly technical and profoundly dubious framework of the theory, much of which is controversial even among fellow supporters. I always chuckle when I remember that Sean Carroll said his derivation of the Born Rule was "the love child of Vaidman and Zurek" ([2]) only for Vaidman to call it "illegitimate." My extremely personal view is that the failure to convincigly account for probabilities, despite decades of attempts, renders the many-worlds theory a fancy metaphysical picture but a non-viable scientific theory of the world - but this is just my impression. I was actually stimulated into expanding the article when I fell upon a YouTube video describing quantum immortality whose comments were populated by random people enthusiastically convinced that the laws of physics of the universe would have protected them from being run over by a truck in the streets or things like that - like our friend in the talk page convinced that the laws of the universe will somehow protect him from ever getting fatally ill. So, I hope that people will be encouraged to look up on Wikipedia this apparently cool concept they've heard about and be educated on it. I have even added a (somewhat heavy-handed but enciclopedically defensible) disclaimer in the introduction to cater to the short attention span-casual reader. I spent a couple of weeks researching the issue before starting to edit, that's why I was fairly confident when I refuted the other IP in the talk page. I will see if I find any other topic to expand in the same way, but I can't make promises :) --185.205.11.234 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I feel the same way about the many-worlds interpretation. I've noticed that its advocates often say that it is the simplest and most straightforward interpretation, but given issues with things like the Born rule, I don't see how it comes out ahead on those grounds. With transhumanism, yeah, some ideas under that umbrella are crazy. Personally, I suspect we're going to be a lot more bound to our biology and ecology than transhumanists suspect, but of course we as a species will just have to find out. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The many-worlds interpretation has a vocal minority of evangelists, but most physicists either don't care or espouse some form of the Copenhagen interpretation. The laws of physics will not be decided by democratic vote, and it's perfectly conceivable that the many-worlds interpretation - or any other minority view - will eventually be proven as correct, and we will have to accept it, but so far we have not seen any indication that this might be the case. The issue of probability is, very likely, the deal-breaker for the many-worlds interpretation: it's been more than twenty-five years since there was renewed interest in the subject, hundreds of papers have been published trying to wring out of the theory some explanation for the well-confirmed statistical laws of science that we see, but the consensus is that they are all lacking. At the present moment, many-worlds cannot even explain why we see the sky blue (which is a quantum phenomenon), let alone everything else. There is also the question of ontology, the "furniture of reality" so to speak - again, Everettians have several different ideas of how branching is supposed to materially happen, even what branching is. Not to rub salt in the wound, but when Carroll was told that his proof was just a bunch of equations without any ontological context, he replied: "There are still puzzles to be worked out, no doubt, especially around the issues of exactly how and when branching happens, and how branching structures are best defined... But these seem like relatively tractable technical challenges to me" ([3]). Everyone who knew some history of physics couldn't help but be reminded of when, in the 50s, Heisenberg claimed he had developed some new theory in which "only technical details are missing." His good friend Wolfgang Pauli replied by drawing an empty rectangle and writing around it: "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian - only the technical details are missing" ([4]). He was joking. Carroll wasn't. Of course, six years have gone by and the relatively tractable technical challenges have remained unanswered. So, it's safe to say that, for the moment, many-worlds cannot be considered a viable scientific theory. My personal guess is that it will remain this way, notwithstanding all the popular hype.

As for transhumanism, it seems to me mostly as evidence that some sense of religion or religiousness, or even of organized religion, is inherent to the human being. I familiarized myself with their thoughts about artificial intelligence. Most of their claims boil down to "we are surely going to be screwed in the near future, but if you give your money to this organization, then you will have happy life everlasting" - which is not a new claim in human history. Like anyone who actually works in the artificial intelligence field will tell you, any potentially interesting artificial intelligence is not only at least decades away but also many conceptual breakthroughs away. At the moment, we are like 19th century people wondering about a weapon of mass destruction: all they could have probably imagined would have been a super-rifles, stronger and more lethal versions of their rifles; they couldn't have foreseen the conceptual leaps that brought us nuclear bombs. If they had been wondering about manmade catastrophes, they would have thought of big fires - they could have never thought Chernobyl. I'm sure that artificial intelligence, like any powerful technology, will have its risks, so it's probably for the better that there already is interest in their prevention, but there are simply too many unknowns to be dealt with before we can have a clear picture of what to "plan ahead" for. Right now, artificial intelligences can beat world champions of chess and go but in the sentence "I can't fit the laptop in the bag as it is too small" can't tell what "it" refers to. As for cryonics, like any neurobiologist will tell you, by far the most likely result of cryonics is that someday your half-decomposed frozen corpse will be put in a glass in a museum, alongside Egyptian mummies, to show 25th century kids to what irrational extremes fear of death lead some 21st century people. The same goes for human enhancement, as we still don't understand much of human physiology, let alone how to modify it. So, on the overall, I don't put too much weight on transhumanism. --185.205.11.234 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I feel similarly. Speaking of neurobiology, an article you may want to look at is Mind uploading. I haven't gone through it thoroughly yet, but it seems thin on the academic criticisms that are based on the impracticality of it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but it's not really my cup of tea. --185.205.11.234 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, don't feel obligated. Just throwing it out there. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant AfD and RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Quantum immortality

Hi. I've seen you have reverted all of the IP's contributions. I have salvaged some of them, as they were worthwile additions that - frankly - I had missed. In all fairness, do you believe that David Lewis' "bad immortality" picture deserve a mention in the article? I'm a bit on the fence. He does get quoted by many, but all consistently refute his point, and there would be a need of a lot of context to be put around Lewis' position to make it a fair representation. As I believe that the other IP might be, surely in good faith, pushing his POV, and I don't want the guy to see his contributions deleted, I was thinking about writing a proper mention myself, soon after Tegmark's initial paragraph (following a kind of chronological order), and then shuffling the other authors to show how they responded to Lewis. What do you think? --185.205.11.234 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I still hold strongly that David Lewis' comments should not be in the article, as was gone over at the article and above. While your WP:AGF is commendable, it doesn't mean that we always find a middle ground with a disputant. Per WP:Consensus, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", and it is to "involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (Emphasis added.) WP:Undue and WP:PROFRINGE mean that we should not add material from a single old source to try to water down newer scholarship that directly addresses and progresses from those old ideas. As you, me, and Akvadrako are satisfied without it, we do not need to add it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the clarification. --185.205.11.234 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Baseball metaphors for sex 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --evrik ^(talk) 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously retaliatory. Anyone can see the history and who was following WP:BRD. [5] Crossroads ^-talk- 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hart and Fermi Paradox

Hi!

I think it may be just us two who have the consistent interest in getting our story on Fermi Paradox correct. Just to explain a bit my revert here [6], I have been doing a deep dive recently into this subject and have found that the vast majority of sources do not reference Hart's approach at all. My inclination is that this is likely due to its extravagance. Part of the issue in SETI research is that extravagance gets published in journals even while not being referenced in the more staid literature.

Is there a case for extravagance on Wikipedia? Perhaps, but it is misleading to go on about these "out on a limb" ideas, in my estimation. I think that the entire article is due for an overhaul largely along the lines of the preponderance of the sources which discuss this (which happen to be mostly intro astronomy texts and the like). In any case, would like to get your opinions on this in discussion form as I imagine that you have more to say than what can fit into edit summaries. We could do it on the talkpage too, if you like. Let me know!

jps (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi ජපස, I'm actually surprised no one else weighed in yet, since there are others who have weighed in on other matters. I made this edit. I think the three books I mentioned there would be good to use as sources on the topic. All three of them consider Hart's formulation an important part of the history. This paper also talks a lot about it. A big part of the paradox's 'bite' hinges on interstellar settlement, so that comes up a lot when discussing the topic, even if 'extravagant'. While I'm curious what the sources you bring to the table will say, I don't think we should limit ourselves to what sources that only briefly discuss the paradox have to say. Hart isn't an overwhelming part of the topic, but enough to mention in the history. Yeah, the article has a lot of room for improvement. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is that the primary source literature is a bit more expansive than what is typically explained in more secondary discussions. I don't necessarily think we should limit ourselves to brief sources, but I think that most of the sources that discuss the idea do so from the perspective of it being a way to parametrize ignorance. Beyond this, I think that the primary source literature including Hart's and those that deal with Hart tend to make a lot of assumptions that even authors like Jason Wright will admit simply fall under "speculation". I would rather keep speculation in a separate section and describe the paradox on the terms that is explained in the primary sourced document from LANL, for example. jps (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that relying on secondary sources is best, per WP:PSTS, of course. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Search counts in Talk page discussions

Hi, Crossroads, attempting to add some quantitative data to Talk page discussions as you did here in order to arrive at a conclusion backed by real data is commendable. There are some caveats however; most people don't understand how to properly interpret search engine hit counts, and there are many other pitfalls in coming up with valid queries and valid analysis of results. There are not, for example, 445,000 books that mention LGBTQ. WP:Search engine test is better than nothing as a guide about some of this; see for example section #Interpreting results. The actual number of books for LGBTQ is closer to 450, by the way; do this search, and then hit Next. (The factor of 1,000 is coincidental; this could have been any number.) For books having LGBTQ in the title, it's 211. Google Trends should be used hardly at all, since it is based on user data, thus not reliable for most things. The only thing "Trends" should be used for, is as a source to verify what Google users were searching for at a given point in time and how popular the search was; it is useless for determining COMMONNAME or anything of that sort. I don't have time to go into all this in great detail now, but if you want support for search data in some future discussion, ping me. Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot, thanks. Admittedly, the comment was not an in-depth analysis and was put together quickly. I know you've had good comments before on move discussions, so I hope you'll be able to weigh in early if an RfC on the initialism does happen. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yah, I figured; that's one of the reasons I didn't respond there; plus, your conclusion was right anyway, so it would've been a bit pedantic there. There are plenty of times when the conclusion goes the other way, so it does pay to know as much as you can about it when getting involved in using search results in discussions. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)