User talk:GoatGod

Welcome!

Hello, GoatGod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Hi, You've made a couple of edits at Andrew Jackson that I reverted. One was a citation to a novel asserting Jackson was born at sea and his presidency was illegitimate. Reliable sources say he was born in North or South Carolina. We use these sources instead of novels. When editing, your references were improperly formatted, so I reverted that, too. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Book in question "The Frontiersman" is not a novel, it is a narrative history, though I no longer support its claims, necessarily, about Andrew Jackson's birth.

March 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Clairvoyance appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You're statement that your's is the "majority opinion" is your opinion; as I stated, the citations supporting the line that parapsychology is pseudoscience do not make this claim and the source supporting the other omitted line is a biased website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.103.104 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Clairvoyance, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A valid reason was given in the original edit: the sources supporting the statements do not support them. None of the sources even use the word, "parapsychology." The source to the other deletion is an obviously biased source.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clairvoyance. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You people are simply going to lie about scientific fact because it suits your opinion; you have thus degraded the credibility of Wikipedia. As I have repeatedly pointed out and been ignored, the statement "Parapsychology, including the study of clairvoyance, is an example of pseudoscience.[6][7][8][9]" is "supported" by four references that egregiously do not even include the word "parapsychology," let alone claim that it is a pseudoscience Use of references that do not support the claims they are supposed to be supporting is a clear violation of academic tradition.

The statement in the Clairvoyance article, "Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals." is blatantly false as The Huffington Post clearly proves: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassandra-vieten/esp-evidence_b_795366.html.

In the interest of science, rationality, and the academic tradition, I strongly suggest that Wikipedia editors and authorities examine scientific fact and reason as opposed to their own irrational beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs)

Hello GoatGod. You may want to review the parapsychology article. A majority of academic sources are cited that explicitly call it pseudoscience. Also please review the encyclopedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source: WP:RS, and our sourcing guidelines for fringe theories: WP:FRIND. An 8 year old HuffPo blog post by Cassandra Vieten would not be considered a reliable independent source of scientific fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lucky Louis, I do appreciate your response and consideration of this important issue:

a) Have you looked at the FOUR REFERENCES in "support" of the following statement which I deleted to constant reversions, despite my giving sound reasoning that no one has taken the trouble to research or refute: "Parapsychology, including the study of clairvoyance, is an example of pseudoscience.[6][7][8][9]" I am talking about the four footnoted references (6,7,8&9): none of them even use the word, "Parapsychology--"This can easily be verified by accessing the four articles each and then hitting "Control F" and searching for the word "Parapsychology--" let alone claim that this science, which Duke, an Ivy League university, has housed a research institute dedicated to for more than eighty years, is a "pseudoscience."

b) The Huffington Post blog's veracity is not in question: it is the article that it referenced are you seriously doubting its claim that Dr. Bem is an establish psychologist involved in textbooks on the subject or that the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" is a "high impact factor peer reviewed journals"? The Wikipedia article "Clairvoyance," as it stands, contains a blatantly false claim: "Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals.[4]" Maybe it would be more efficacious to, instead of using a second hand source to cite the journal article that proves this claim false directly: http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0021524. Though intelligently discussed in a Huffington Post blog; I am fine with your (instead or in addition to) citing this article directly in the interest of accuracy for Wikipedia.

Furthermore if you would kindly note the supporting reference to the claim: "high impact factor peer reviewed journals"? The Wikipedia article "Clairvoyance," as it stands, contains a blatantly false claim: "Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals.[4]," footnote four: it is a reference to the biography of a "skeptic." This in no way supports the above claim.

For these reasons, the "Clairvoyance" articles claim that Clairvoyance or parapsychology "is considered as pseudoscience" must be amended to reflect the truth that evidence for it has not been omitted from publication in high impact factor peer reviewed journals and the claim that parapsychology is considered "pseudoscience" must be properly cited, if it can be. It also must be admitted in the article on clairvoyance (and apparently on parapsychology which you imply makes the same spurious claims).

Further, you will kindly note that a Huffington Post Blog with well reasoned argumentation, relevancy and factual citation is superior to other sources that have appeared in the article in question like "A Skeptic's Dictionary," an obviously biased source and a biography of one admitted skeptic. Furthermore, many of the citations used by others have been (and/or still are) much more than eight years old (which the Huffington Post blog is not--it is seven years old).

I've added references to the article that explicitly describe it as pseudoscience. After your block has expired, you may wish to take your discussion to Talk:Clairvoyance. Please consider that Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS of editors rather than individual argumentation. Further edit warring or disruptive editing will result in escalating blocks or bans. Also please be aware of existing discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

LuckyLouie (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy against deductive logic? Have you ever seen Gandhi? In that film Gandhi in South Africa is being ejected from a first class rail car. He tells the conductor that he is a lawyer. The conductor responds: There are no coloureds in South Africa. Gandhi replies: I am coloured and I am a lawyer, we can therefore deduce that there is at least one coloured lawyer in South Africa. (For this is physically thrown off the train.)

The Wikipedia article on Clairvoyance states: "Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals.[4]" (This statement is supported, ONLY, I might add, by one reference only which is a BIOGRAPHiCAL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE--do you consider that sound sourcing?) This article <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280961> is published in a "high impact factor peer reviewed journal" which is further discussed in Wired magazine by its Science editor <https://www.wired.com/2010/11/feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possible/> and is authored by an imminent psychologist who is involved in Psychology textbooks: We can therefore deduce that there is at least one claim for the existence of the paranormal published in a high impact factor peer reviewed journal and thus, that the statement, "Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals." is false. The Wikipedia article on Clairvoyance contains false information, therefore Wikipedia contains false information. Wikipedia is therefor a non-credible encyclopedia. But, hey if Wikipedia wants to lie and call it science, I apparently lack the power to stop them. (I was punished for effectively updating it and improving it to contain factual truth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs)

You may wish to review Daryl_Bem#"Feeling_the_Future"_controversy. A single study published by Bem offered evidence of paranormal and psychic abilities that was found to have significant statistical errors and failed several attempts at replication — which ultimately reported no evidence for precognition. In other words, these claims "have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals". Again, I suggest that after your block is expired, you utilize article Talk pages to discuss your concerns, rather than edit warring and disruptive editing behaviors. This will help you avoid further sanctions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking administrator's note You were not "punished for effectively updating it," you were blocked for determined edit-warring across multiple topics. If you return to this behavior when the block expires the next block will be longer. Use the talkpages to obtain consensus before attempting major changes. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus" just means that the powers that be at wikipeida decide. You're kidding yourselves if you think you are acting with integrity. The Wikipedia system is self--delusional--but enjoy your world of lies guys! You decide what constitutes: "Scientific Evidence," there is no process for this. Many published works are controversial--you're going to decide which one are "right" in the controversy. Wikipedia is helpful in many ways, but as a source of reasoned argument or scientific reportage, it fails.

You are saying nothing new, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:ABIAS: we're biased for mainstream science and against fringe stuff. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in any case, in bringing down ESP research you have inadvertently brought attention to A MAJOR ISSUE for Wikipedia, that, and you may prove me wrong about this, for my search wasn't exhaustive, Wikipedia is falsely ignoring--for starters, but not the end, by a long chalk, the Wikipedia article on "Psychological Research" doesn't even mention the WORD "registration..."

Why does that matter? You will note, Lucky Louie, and others interested in the integrity, currency and accuracy of Wikipedia that the argument in the article you used to bring down, as it were, the Bem piece, though only literally a (reference) footnote, is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE.

Please read the Slate article referenced only, as far as I could find--though my search was certainly not exhaustive--in the Wikipedia article on Daryl Bem, footnote : <https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html> it did a lot more than discredit Bem's work. (Ironically this is apparently the basis of the comments some PhDs in Economics I know have been making about the inferiority of other Social Science research to Econometrics research), it has discredited, barring reevaluation, ALL Psychological research at least prior to 2011. And, if you give credence to some of the doubt placed on "pre-registration," than it has abrogated or continues to abrogate all of Psychological research. <https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-preregistration-makes-me-nervous/comment-page-1>

In fact it turns out, to paraphrase the Slate article here cited, that all of the doubt that had been placed on parapsychological research alone is now cast on ALL psychological research.

For this reason, for starters, as mentioned, the entire corpus of Wikipedia reportage on or that involves Psychological if not other (Social) Science research must be re-evaluated.

If you don't believe me (thus far) then please, check out the following article as well:<http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124>

The fact is that The Social Sciences are experiencing a major epistemological crisis right now and Wikipedia in all its articles, need to reflect this.

As it stands all (Social) Science is essentially pseudoscience.

• • • • Note why you can't just tone it down a notch and say something like the Britannica Encyclopedia says about Clairvoyance ("Research in parapsychology—such as testing a subject’s ability to predict the order of cards in a shuffled deck—has yet to provide conclusive support for the existence of clairvoyance.") is beyond me. <https://www.britannica.com/science/clairvoyance>

You will further note that Bem and his research was not labelled: "Pseudoscience" in the Wikipedia article on him and that the section of the article on him concerning the research in question was called a "controversy" and not "discredited research" or the like.

And also, not to belabor the obvious, but the title of the cited Slate article includes the phrase: "Science is Broken." This underlies a serious problem in the sciences that Wikipedia cannot rightfully ignore.

Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. So, we have causal claims that defy everything else from sciences, and causal claims which don't defy most of established science. See organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion?

@GoatGod: I'll add that since your editing emphasis appears to be directed at inserting into Wikipedia that clairvoyance is real, you should read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, and that requires extensive documentation that it is accepted science, or that it be treated in proportion to its level of acceptance in mainstream sources. One or two articles concerning reproducibility of psychological experiments don't meet that threshold. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You have mis-characterized my edit; it was not to claim that clairvoyance was real but that it is controversial and has been researched by established researchers using established methods; it is therefore not a "pseudoscience."

Also, how do you define exceptional? Since science is supposed to show what is exceptional and what is not, this is a circular argument.

Lastly, this comment belongs in the March 2018 section; you are discussing something that is not relevant to this section of the talk page.--post has been moved to appropriate section.

Wikipedia does not decide what counts as pseudoscience, Wikipedia merely reflects the views of mainstream scientists and philosophers of science, including those busy with the demarcation problem (i.e. debunkers). So, if the status of parapsychology in mainstream science will change, Wikipedia will reflect that. But we don't predict future developments of science, Wikipedia will have to wait till that happens. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Scientists have variant opinions on how to characterize parapsychology. Wikipedia is cherry picking.

No, it isn't cherry picking, it is reflecting the mainstream scientific consensus. As told, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:ABIAS. Not realizing that parapsychology is a marginal scientific activity is delusional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Established researchers using established methods have researched. It is thus not a "pseudoscience."

You don't have to argue with me, you have to argue with mainstream science. Wikipedia merely reflects the consensus of mainstream scientists, philosophers of science and debunkers. So, you will have to convince mainstream science and Wikipedia will follow it sheepishly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is your opinion; I understand that. How you define "mainstream science" and "consensus" is subjective.

No, for Wikipedians such definitions are not "subjective", but they are inter-subjectively settled by WP:PAGs. E.g. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note the first paragraph (and feel free to go beyond this if you like) in the most respected and well established popular scientific journal on the planet (let us not forget that Wikipedia itself is a popular publication)--it goes far further back than Wikiepdia and it perfeclty makes my case: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/.

So, you do consider Shermer reliable. Well, he is 100% for labeling parapsychology as pseudoscience. From the quoted article it does not follow that parapsychology isn't pseudoscience. Knowledge of electricity has produced the telegraph, knowledge of parapsychology has produced nothing widely recognized as useful. When I was an occultist I knew full well that occultism is marginal. University of Amsterdam teaches history of occultism (religious studies). There the professors state upfront that they are studying a marginal phenomenon of Western culture. Similarly, the claim that parapsychology isn't fringe is an utterly deluded claim. This holds inter-subjectively for all Wikipedians, even for supporters of parapsychology. You may think that parapsychology is true, but you may not claim here that it isn't fringe. Such claim would be baloney and this website has little tolerance for peddlers of WP:CB. All arguments that it isn't presently fringe will be regarded as ludicrous and contrived. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're using very faulty reasoning: I have made no claim to the validit or lack of it of parapsychology. Your non sequuitur claim is false, as the artilce clearly states. As the Scientific American article points out, String theory has not been proved; it has no practical implications that have been documented, yet it is not considered pseudoscience. The point is that anybody could call something they don't like or that represents a threat, "baloney" that is just obviously emotional and irrational language. The same is true as "deluded." You are saying nothing substanative. You are simply being insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You wrote Established researchers using established methods have researched. It is thus not a "pseudoscience." Didn't you? What we need here is people who contribute in good faith, but we don't want ignoramuses or troublemakers. You are effectively saying that WP:FRINGE would not apply to parapsychology, but the fact that it is fringe is the whole point of the warnings you have received from multiple editors. We don't want here undue promotion of fringe theories (while a description of fringe theories from a mainstream viewpoint is allowed). You have been repeatedly asked to acknowledge that in the real world of mainstream science parapsychology is fringe. We do describe the problems parapsychology has in the real world, but we are not here to fix them for you. String theorists will readily admit that string theory is applied math and that it isn't physics yet. That's the difference between string theory and parapsychology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're argument was that in order to be considered a veritable science, it had to be useful, I have showed you that this wrong. Are you now saying that the use of math makes a theory valid. By whose standards? Karl Marx has used math to "prove" that increasing the capital to worker ratio of firms lowers profits; the math has made this no less absurd; that says absolutely nothing. The point of the Scientific American article that you are refusing to face up to is that there is no scientific or agreed upon standard, nor likely can their be one, to decide what is or is not "pseudoscience" and those in authority, abusing their authority, simply call whichever scientific endevour that is threatening to them, "pseudoscience."

You are engaging in a ciruclar arguement when you appeal to the authority of wikipeida editors--you know that the Wikipeida editors are right, this is proved by the fact that the Wikipedia editors are right--the whole point is that those editors, and Wikipedia in general, is wrong to use the term, "psuedoscience" because it itself, as Scientifc American points out, is an unprovable term. Some scientists use it, others do not. Its use is not a consensus of the scientific community; it is an opion of some in the scientific community as references in Wikipedia articles cherry pick and point to. The facdt that Scientific American does not recognize pseudoscience as such is proof postive that there is no "consensus" in the scientifi community that parapsycholgy or anything else is, in fact, psuedoscience. Belief in its existence an opion parading as fact.GoatGod (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not interested in pointlessly parsing words from the definitions of science and pseudoscience. For Wikipedians "parapsychology isn't fringe" has the same truth value as "Obama is the king of France".

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted from Talk:Adam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you alright? Who made any statements about any ethnic groups? Your responses are starting to sound unstable.

"Not editing against the consent of editors" is a statement that makes no sense since the point of Wikipedia is that everyone is an editor. "Our House"--you're might is right argument is not only illogical, its somewhat scary. Those with opinions different then yours do not constitute the outside. I have logically and scientfically proved to you and to others that the use of the term "psuedoscience" is itself a psuedoscience and uses no scientific methodology. Faced with this truth, you are engaging in increasing degrees of bullying to the point that I would call on an authority in wikipedia to revert your edits for their abusive language bizare acusations and unreasoned tone.

You are using an endless circular argument. Your only remaining point is that Wikipedia is right becuase it says that it is right. This is how dictatorial governments and other authoritarian institutions behave, this has been the bain of scientific reasoning from the time of its inception; this is the reason people were burned at the stake for their belief--for using reasoned argument scienfic arguemnt against tradtion. Is this what Wikipedia is, is this what you want it to be. You are not engaging in reasoned discourse, you are power tripping.

You offer absolutly zero remaining substanative arguments against the claims that I have made, yet you go on to insist that your power, or the power of the Wikiepdia community somehow trumps the turth; there was another community who did the same thing using the consensus of the scientific community of the time, eugenics, to do it; it was called Nazi Germany.

Godwin's law. What is germane to our discussion is WP:FREE, read it very well and take it to the heart: Wikipedia is private property and thus WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If you want to edit here, you have to abide by WP:PAGs otherwise you will get blocked or banned. I am not an admin and therefore I cannot block you, but there are plenty of admins ready to block troublemakers. In the end, it does not matter if you are ignorant, deluded, quite biased or awarely stirring trouble, the effects are the same and admins have been appointed to combat such damage to our encyclopedia. (The part with the Jews are not my words, it is explicitly a quotation of somebody else's words, in another context.) Even the Friedrichshof Commune had rules, why would you expect Wikipedia to have no rules? We do care about truth, but imho Popper, Quine, Kuhn and Feyerabend are post-truth. I am also not sure that you fully comprehend the articles you are citing. You seem to derive from them viewpoints which just aren't there (e.g. that Shermer chastises himself as debunker for using the word "pseudoscience" as label for fringe theories). Your choice is simple: are you prepared to accept that Wikipedia has rules and inter-subjectively defines terms like "fringe" and "mainstream scholarship"? It is not a complicated question. I cannot choose instead you, but I can spell out that this is a very important choice for a Wikipedian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're just making endless irrational accusations and comitting the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." If you and/or other Wikipedians wish to continue to deny the facts and engage in non-scientific reasoning by the coninuted use of the term, "psuedoscience," then that is your decision.GoatGod (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it is not irrational, the reasoning is very simple: for Wikipedians fringe is what WP:FRINGE says that it is. Any bigger community has to have rules, otherwise it cannot function. People of different national origins, class backgrounds, genders and worldviews have to agree upon how to use certain terms, otherwise they cannot understand each other. As I said, the choice to comply with our rules is yours and yours alone. But such choice has consequences for your editing. And, for your information, this whole website is a big appeal to authority: remove the appeal to authority and Wikipedia will crumble like a house of cards. The appeal to authority isn't always a sophism. So, don't even try to argue that parapsychology isn't fringe, because it is clearly and unambiguously defined as fringe by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You have the right to hold any opinion on this matter, but in order to understand the warnings which you have received, you have to understand how Wikipedians use the term "fringe". And, inside Wikipedia, the mere opinion that you disagree with WP:PAGs won't get you blocked, but actual violations of WP:PAGs will. So, your opinion does not get you blocked, but your behavior could get you blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

“Pseudoscience” is an Oxy Moron: It wouldn't be considered science if it weren't science at all. Who, outside of the scientific community, even has the ability let alone the motivation to imply that something that is not scientific is. And if exploration is done within it, it is not, by definition, pseudoscience. Advocates of Astrology realize that they are going against the "scientific" reality; they just believe in another one. Most (even one of the Wikipedians on this page) acknowledge this. Accredited investigation into parapsychological or occult matters, whether successful or failed, using scientific techniques are obviously not "pseudoscience" so why even use this term; its at best meaningless. In fact, Dr. Daryl Bem has brought down the credibility of all scientific research before 2011 and much if not most of it after it because he used what had (and largely still is) considered scientific methodology to explore it. One simple sentence in the Wikipedia article on Clairvoyance: “No accepted scientific evidence for the existence of Clairvoyance has been forthcoming” is sufficient. Why is this so threatening?

Here WP:ACTIVISTS are not wanted. And, you are right: we don't "argue rationally" with you, since this is neither a research institute, nor Debatepedia, we're an encyclopedia. Also, the final nail in the coffin of parapsychology, paranormal findings are de facto banned from serious scientific journals. They're treated like searches for Noah's Ark. We're not here to fix this problem for you, perhaps it helps if you think of Wikipedia as "the servile scribes of scientific orthodoxy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Commentary on talkpages

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Psychological Research for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The talkpage you posted on is about an academic journal, not about psychological research in general. Please do not hijack talkpages for unrelated topics to post your own views. If this continues you may face editing restrictions, as I warned above. Acroterion (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article I linked <https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html>. Please read before you continue with your threats. The academic journal article in question is the source of the contraversy in psychological research--(a). (B) This article proves that parapscyhology is NOT a pseudoscience as the research in it was carried out successfully using methodology that was sound based on the standards of 2010. If you are calling this article pseudoscience, than you are calling all psychological research before 2011 pseudoscience. If you do this, call all research before 2011 pseudoscience, then you may call parapsychology pseudoscience, otherwise you are simply acting with predjudice.

I don't think you read the article for that talkpage: it's about a journal, not about psychological research in general. Do you have substantive improvements to propose concerning that journal's article? And no, we don't make radical overhauls to an entire subject based on a single article in Slate, especially that one, whose point you have entirely missed. The Slate article is intentionally ironically titled, and it's about experimental reproducibility in science, using psychological research techniques as a examples, not about proof that parapsychology is real. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ignoring a major crisis in Pscyhological Research (that exists at least in this field). The Slate article sources with numerous refereaces that you are ignoring. The Psychological Research article in Wikipedia doesn't even mention pre-registration, wihich is a major coup to the field, or the criticism of this.

Have you noticed for example, this article: <http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124>

This was not an opinion piece in Slate. Though you are certainly venting yours. You are fine using "one Slate article" if it supports whaot you or others in Wikipedia feel is wrong, for example in the Bem contraversy, but if it givers solid and repeated evidence against something you or others in authority at Wikipedia hold personally to be True, despite the evidence, then you minimize to suit yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:C34A:E800:593C:A742:D697:EC3A (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is ignoring a major crisis in Pscyhological Research..." No, it's not. You need to use the search box (see left column under "Navigation"). Type in a phrase and hit Search. You'll find lots of useful articles, such as Replication_crisis#Tackling_publication_bias_with_pre-registration_of_studies and John_Ioannidis#Research_findings etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point. Acroterion's revert was unwarranted. The issue is clearly referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia, but nowhere in the Psychological Research issue, though, as I said, it represents a major crises (not just one Slate article). Acroterion backed his revert with faulty reasoning.

Do you mean this edit? I suggest you take a step back and familiarize yourself with how to navigate Wikipedia articles, talk pages, community standards, editorial process, etc. You posted on the talk page of an article about an academic journal. That would not be the appropriate article to discuss psychological research in general. And it's unclear what it was you were proposing. Perhaps you were mistakenly replying to an editor's comment from 2013? In any case, the revert was justified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you don't understand; if you read this talk page it discusses a reverted (by Acroterion) page edit to the Psychological Research page. Maybe you should learn to navigate the talk page article(s) and understand them(/it). He is the one that began this discussion on my talk page (in a hostile and threatening manner I might add--in essence he moved the discussion from the place it belonged, "psychological research" to this page).

There are two different articles: Psychological research (the topic) and Psychological Research (the journal). You posted on the Talk page of the journal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK; I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs)

I'm glad we finally got that cleared up. Please be careful to check where you're posting comments, and please remember not to get so bound up in contesting comments that you don't notice what's really going on. We're supposed to be discussing, not arguing. Please remember that all content is subject to consensus. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and please do not make accusations and threats before you understand what has gone on. Thank You.

July 2021

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. 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

GoatGod, I find your behavior in that article, and on the talk page, to be disruptive. And this, that's really hard to understand from an editor who's been here so long--but what it points out is, well, incompetence, or at least a kind of disinterest in and disregard for the way we do things here. Then there's the use of the talk page as a forum, the edit warring--Acroterion, we've been here before with this editor, haven't we? Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You're just making meaningless, emotional and unfounded accusations, the editor who continues to revert is committing small sampling and spurious correlation errors that none of you are addressing. The EKC has not been shown to perform well for GHGs, this is established in the Economics community, that neither of you are aware of; I have cited copious sources that you have continuously ignored; you have not sufficiently researched the issues and are simply spouting off your murderous, uneducated opinions. You have provided, neither of you, and evidence against my well sourced page and are handling the issue withou reason but "power" in your ignorance which is considerable. Neither of you have had any formula economics training and are committing grievous errors in an issue with extremely high stakes.

You simply have, both of you, failed to make any reasonable responses to any issues I have raised and make repeated assertions without evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs)

As Drmies notes, we've been here before. You're removing referenced material in favor of unreferenced close paraphrases of other published material, without attribution. I assume those numbers are meant to be references, but they aren't. It looks like they were copied in with the text. You're altering other editors' comments on talkpages, which isn't permitted, and you're responding to disagreement with bluster. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As I feared, your response exhibits a complete lack of understanding of what we actually do here. The criticism was of your behavior, and instead you start arguing things about content, preceded by the tiresome "you're being emotional". I think you are lucky that Acroterion blocked you for edit warring, since as far as I'm concerned an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE is the proper way to deal with years of disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You yourselves continue to fabricate meaningless charges. I am not sure if being emotional about the destruction of natural systems and countless future generations--millions if not billions of people is a bad thing. The EKC does not work for ACC. I think it obvious that it continues to worsen. You are simply making unsupportable accusations to deflect reasoned arguments that you cannot deny. You are persisting in defending a dangerous and disproved past status quo that has been empirically and theoretically disproven. I have provided more than a dozen papers disproving the EKC which had only been established for local air pollutants when introduced. Outside of local and immediate environmental effects—definitely not ACC—the EKC, it is agreed, as can be gleaned from the literature, has not been established. You're not even economists. Furthermore, as I learned from a paper presented earlier this year, the supposed gains in improving ACC in EU are illusionary: it showed that ACC is simply being exported abroad.

You continue to behave irrationally, and stupidly, I might add, unable to yield any meaningful rational response, focusing, of course, on form instead of function because you have no reasoned, meaningful rebuttal. Wikipedia released a YouTube Video on the dangers of ACC, yet you sit there and continue to promulgate the spurious and patently false arguments that are being used to increase emissions and make ACC worse and worse. The hypocrisy of Wikipedia here is monumental. And some of the blood of the damage of ACC is on your hands. GoatGod (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You conflate Wikipedia with the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. We aren't decision makers. We simply render verifiable knowledge from reliable sources, according to WP:UNDUE.

So, if you're seeking to steer world politics, you are in the wrong place and barking at the wrong tree. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I see you reverted while I left that message. You've been unambiguously edit-warring. If you edit-war again, the next block may be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)