User talk:Simonm223/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Simonm223. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Simonm223, 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:

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! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for helping me with clarifying the information in Piguaquan. It's appreciated. Angie Y. (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am oonly using one account. I am at work and we all share an IP address. I've been auto-blocked because of soemthing done by one of my co-workers. Please consult my contribution history to demonstrate I am not a sock puppet.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 64.201.173.189 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

If you know the user involved with the sock puppetry case, it would be preferable if you asked him nicely to refrain from making unconstructive edits. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already done so on a few occasions. My concern is mainly for those of us who have experienced blocks because of this who have not been making unconstructive edits. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What IP address is being blocked? The block on 64.201.173.189 appears to have been lifted. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What other users have experienced blocks? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I experienced a block which I successfully had removed. The person who I was blocked for IP sharing with was in turn blocked because his account is suspected of being a sock puppet for the individual you blocked for sock puppetry. I don't know if he has been contributing constructively or not but he is a distinct person, not a sock puppet. Furthermore two other users who have declined to create accounts for unstated reasons (likely apathy) and have not been able to access edit features because of the IP block. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting facts:

You are editing from two IP addresses both registered to your employer but seemingly leased from two different ISPs. Of course that could be a mistake in the whois registry.
Jrsmcmillan and Jimboss69 edit from both of your IP addresses.
The only users to edit from 64.201.173.189 on May 28 and 29 are yourself, Jrsmcmillan and Jimboss69. So I'm not clear on who might have been caught in any autoblock besides yourself.

Call me crazy, but I think you are responsible for those accounts, and if you really want to not trigger autoblocks at work, you should probably not create throaway vandal accounts when you're bored. You should probably take your own advice. Thatcher 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Koolaid?

What koolaid does The Epoch Times mix?--Asdfg12345 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Solicitation of false testimony as propaghanda against a state opposed to the alternative religious group that funds it.Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What false testimony are you referring to?--Asdfg12345 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Persecution of Falun Gong

This article has been around for over three years, has undergone hundreds of revisions, and has lots of references, demonstrating that it it a notable topic. I removed your proposed deletion tag, because it was totally inappropriate, given that the proposed deletion process is for "uncontroversial deletions", which this clearly would not be. Your arguments of lack of neutrality would be more appropriately taken up on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because one editor doesn't like them. Use the talk page to gain consensus for dealing with what you perceive to be a lack of neutrality in the article. If the consensus view does not agree with your own, learn to live with it.--Michig (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong articles

See [1], a very insightful look onto the FLG articles on wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your AN3 report

Regarding this addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: that is not what this noticeboard is for. It's only to report individuals who are violating Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. If you are looking for input about what to do with the content of the article, you can try WP:Third opinion, Editor assistance, or asking for help at WT:WikiProject China. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In all honest you may be better off bringing the matter to attention at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and perhaps later through arbitration. I have made some comprehensive suggestions on the noticeboard today, I urge you to read it, but I have been told to go to Arbitration. The phenomenon you are reporting (edit warring) has gone on for several years now. You will not solve it through just simple reporting. Colipon+(T) 22:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras

I strongly recommend that you take part in mediation for the current dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

You have not shown it was inappropriate, 4 others have agreed to mediation, it is you and one other that do not agree, look at the talk page, look how long it is, it needs some sort of mediation, I saw the first poll only after putting up mine, then I requested mediation. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the poll that I put is at 6-5 right now, with the majority for crisis. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative, you are just trying to stall, this is a current event, and needs mediation immediately. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus that it is a crisis, as nobody, even people who believe it is a coup, denies that it is a crisis, there is a large minority that believe it was a coup. It should be at the more neutral name. Current events don't wait a week, and it should be at crisis, because NPOV extends to the title. Read the wiki policies I have posted on the talk page. --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 Urumqi riots

What was this revert for? I don't necessarily oppose it because it's similar to my own wording from earlier. But right before your edit, another editor removed that very sentence and gave a rationale, so it's not good to revert like this without even giving an edit summary. Please explain at the talk page (the relevant section is at the bottom of the talk page right now) so that this doesn't turn into an edit war. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Ürümqi Barn"star"
		Thanks for all your work maintaining the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots during its time on the main page. This has been a difficult and thankless task, working at a frenetic pace for 4 days straight so far (I, for one, have been getting very little sleep), and it's only been thanks to coordinated efforts and discussion from numerous editors that the article has been kept as neutral and informative as possible. This is the most collaboration I've done, with the largest number of editors once, since I have joined Wikipedia, and I think the results are showing; while it's not perfect, when my friends and family ask me about what's going on in Urumqi, I have been more comfortable recommending this article than any other source. The work is far from over, but now that this article is off the main page I think it's finally time to thank the editors Seb az86556, Colipon, Jim101, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, Simonm223, and Jinhuili for all their contributions; while we had disagreements, I think each of these editors has been particularly active and has made real efforts to improve the article.rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:AN3

See the result of this 3RR case regarding your edits at Teachings of Falun Gong. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun_Gong

Hello, I think you are an interested contributor for the Falun Gong pages so I added you to this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun_Gong. Best Regards --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2009 Honduran coup.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Talkback

Hello, Simonm223. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_crisis#Name

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_crisis#Name. Thank you. Rico 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Mediation request

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi:

I have added some points on Talk:Falun Gong. Please go there and contribute. Colipon+(T) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name. Thank you. Rico 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

You may wish to comment here.

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention

This is to inform you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Olaf_Stephanos. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FG repository

I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(its's here: User:Ohconfucius/FG repository‎ /Seb az86556 (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

check this out

I'm not stalking you, I came across this on RCA, and found you commented as well: Communist genocide... Someone just created a category "Communist genocide"... that's so frickin' over the top. Would you support deletion, and if so, can you nominate it? thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone nominated it /Seb az86556 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide category

Hi - I noticed that you voted to support deletion of this category; could you indicate your vote and comments on this page instead? csloat (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong workgroup progress cookie! Enjoy!
(Merger of Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy‎ into New Tang Dynasty TV‎)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the floor, laughing!!!!

"editing drunk" --- you nailed it!... I need to wipe the tears outta my eyes .... Seb az86556 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack claim

Simon, I'm really bothered by this accusation, as it was not my intent nor do I see it in my discussion. I'm a long term editor in good standing here, and very active in in a multitude of projects and subjects trying to keep things neutral and under the guidlines of their respective projects. I always try and repsect people's opinions on their matters, even when under great personal attack myself as I have been in a few threads by anonymous IP's and such. Let me state again, I respect your opinion and anyone else that weighs in on the matter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, not a problem then. I think we were just missinterpreting each other and got off on the wrong foot. Happy to make your aquaintence, and look forward to working with you on improving these articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lineage war

The article Lineage war has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable neologism

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos5557 Userspace article

Hello. The image links are deliberately broken in the article to prevent non-free images from showing in an article which is in userspace, per our non-free image policy (WP:NFCC#9). Logos5557 was wrong to call your fix vandalism, but please leave it as it is. Thanks, Black Kite 13:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okies.Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning removed

Sorry, quick fingers. :) Thanks for letting me know :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good edit, thanks.--Asdfg12345 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Robert K. G. Temple

Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Robert K. G. Temple has been removed. It was removed by Tony Sidaway with the following edit summary '(Famous author, and a FRAS. Try afd if you still thinks this merits deletion.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Tony Sidaway before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

False prophet article edits

There is currently an active discussion occurring on this article's talk page regarding the specific material you have been attempting to edit in this article. Please refrain from re-adding the material until a consensus has been arrived at through discussion. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I just proposed a merger of the hip-hop theat"re" page into hip-hop theat"er". I would appreciate it if you would to contribute to the discussion here. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. I'm just trying to generate consensus so I extended an invitation to you since you've proposed a merger of your own in the past. They're both short articles so it shouldn't take up much of your time. Gbern3 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response :-) Gbern3 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

I am sorry you have been dragged into this, but an editor (RedKing7) who I am currently in a dispute with left a message on your talk page (and the talk pages of many other people), asking you to get involved in this dispute. An administrator (User talk:William M. Connolley) subsequently imposed a temporary block on his account, and removed all the messages he sent, including the comment to your talk page. Kransky (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

Was it ever established who this superpowerful wikimedia uk representative was? The person who was going to swoop in and force Herschel's version of the article on the community? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"It was I, LeClerc." However reports of my superpowerful nature have been greatly exagerated. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL Nice to know. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I usually have no tolerance for self-promoters but I was starting to feel sorry for the guy and will actually miss him. I think I'm the only one who voted "Keep." Of course we still may not have heard the last of him. Rees11 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrs Leonora Piper

Is a money conversion from 1910 to its value in 2008 original research? Example: It cost $20.00 dollars for sitting with Piper in 1910 . [The same would cost $456.60 in 2008]. Only $20.00 amount in 1910 is contained in reference material. Adding 2008 conversion myself. Can I do this? Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Simonm223. That was also my conclusion. Kazuba (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Enigma

Would you consider redirecting this article to William S. Burroughs right now? This material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Never-mind editor already commented. Ikip (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

C'mon

You should know better!--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mad Science

Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mad Science has been removed. It was removed by Dougweller with the following edit summary '(between the New York Times article and the fact it works with CSI, etc I have no problems with notability (I've found a number of other news articles also which show notability), also remove coi tag)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dougweller before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

2010

I'm inclined to agree with your redirect. I also anticipate a loud disagreement from the article's author and protector, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

La Violette

Reported him to WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If you want to remove my coi warning and replace it with yours, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Color Light Acupuncture

Hi Simon,

Why do you keep deleting everything off of Color light acupuncture?

If you have issues with how it is stated then that can be corrected.

I see that you did not delete a statement that said colorpuncture was applied with "torches" which is from the 1970s, now they use LEDs. You did not delete an unproven statement that colorpuncture causes headaches, insomnia, etc - which may be possible if shone in the eyes, but this is not the right way to apply colorpuncture. And you can't leave a statement like that up there if only one person stated it, it must be clarified as to the context of that statement.

Your editing seems to be very biased against color light acupuncture.

Please indicate the issues you had with all the context you deleted, and I will correct it.

Thanks

Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010

Hello Simonm223, regarding your bold redirect of Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, I have undone it, and I think we should discuss the possible merge/redirect on the talk page of the article. As you are the party in favour of the merge I would appreciate it if you could start the discussion (as per standard procedure). If you've changed your mind or simply have no interest in pursuing a discussion on the subject please let me know, all the best. PS: I've also sent The Anome a similar message. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientism as bias

We've been through several rounds of this already. Metaphysical, New Age, esoteric, folklore, or occult beliefs are not necessarily "fringe theories", even if they are considered fantastic or unproven by science; science is not the arbiter of ultimate truth, much less Wikipedia. It's not our place to decide that such beliefs are nonsense unworthy of inclusion.

If a school of esoteric thinking is itself notable, its teachings can be authoritatively referenced to leaders of that school. Indeed, for our purpose, certainty is more easily achieved in this area rather than others. The classification of birds and insects is often vague and contentious, being founded on evidence and its interpretation, but for matters contingent on revelation, there is a final authority.

The claim that an arcane or metaphysical doctrine is "in-universe", as if it were a work of fiction, would appear to me to be a fairly strong indication of bias and lack of neutrality. In this case, the very unintelligibility of Austin Osman Spare's formulation of his doctrine, whatever it is, essentially means that Spare's formulation is incontrovertible. And since Spare was one of the founding fathers and chief influences of chaos magic, his ideas have enough resonance to be worthy of articles. You may think Spare was a charlatan and that chaos magic is nonsense. You're probably right.

At least we can be sure that Kia automobiles are Satan's handiwork. But you knew that already. Still, treating arcane or occult subjects as automatically dubious and looking for reasons to delete them is probably just going to create a mess that someone else will need to clean up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You wrote:

And fringe spiritual beliefs do not become less fringe just because they are non-verifiable. If they are only adhered to by a small minority of people, compared to otherwise comparable spiritual positions they can be fairly characterized as fringe. And Spare... definately fringe.

This is perhaps where we disagree most strongly. As far as I am concerned, the only real "fringe" where we're dealing with esoteric belief systems is identical with the general notability guideline. In other words, if an esoteric teaching is addressed in detail by independent sources - independent of the person, not necessarily of the school or movement - it has an identifiable "mainstream" for all practical purposes.

Spare's teaching was influential in certain circles. As noted above, he's considered one of the founders of "chaos magic". Chaos magic may find few devotees, but there are some; they have published independent works on the subject that acknowledge their debt to Spare. And Spare's magical screeds remain in print. They meet the general notability guideline; and within that realm of interest, Spare was not a fringe lunatic but a respected teacher and founder.

My interest in this stuff is mostly as a student of folklore; magical folklore interests me, although I understand how it might seem tiresome rubbish to others. Chaos magic is as worthy of respect as Christianity. We cannot arbitrate the truth of formally undecidable metaphysical propositions by counting adherents or holding a popularity contest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I went and seconded your PROD on that Satanic personality clock, though now I find myself coveting one, hopefully with chimes and gongs; maybe I can get it to strike thirteen. I found squat on it elsewhere. Maybe they only come in the dashboard of a Kia.

But on Kia (occult), I found a good deal on Google Scholar, including mentions in general lexicons of arcane lore unaffiliated with Spare's school or chaos magic; Books also yields some promising results. It's generally wise to run some basic searches and report their results before proposing deletion of anything; deletion process is not for hostage-taking to compel improvements of otherwise worthy subjects.

And if you want to actually work on these articles, go ahead. I try to improve them as I have time, and some days I have more than others. It actually helps a lot if the person reviewing the sources looks toward them with a somewhat supercilious eye. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Astral Projection

Your answer is requested on the talk page. Redheylin (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Since you participated in the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in my renomination of the article for deletion. If you would like to participate in that debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I notice that you have placed a deletion template on this article but have not added it to the list of AfD. (So there is no talk page for the discussion.) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Astrotheology

I did not salt because of the long interval since the previous submission, but if it is inserted again, I will do a protected redirect. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ancient astronauts

Article looks clean comparing with a version from back in June - good job. WikEd has a much better diff comparison display, which works well when vandalism is partially obscured by intervening edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Global Consciousness Project, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Logos5557 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice about Global Consciousness Project

Hello, Simonm223. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your edits/behaviour in Global Consciousness Project. Thank you.. Logos5557 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think the GCP is junk too, but we have to edit the article using sources that discuss the GCP directly. Isn't using Jeffrey's article about PEAR[2] improper synthesis? We've got plenty of other material to chose from:

The San Antonio Express said "An obscure team of researchers is trying to determine whether the world can put its collective heads together and, in essence, bend spoons on a global level".[3].

An academic writing in The National says: "The only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative."[4]

Stephen Strauss on CBC News says "As far as I can tell, all that is occurring is statistical hopscotch and post hoc explanations extraordinaire. Worse, sometimes the surges occur before the events – 9/11 is a classic example – forcing GCP advocates to argue that consciousness exists in advance of the events that focus consciousness. And conversely they have to explain away how obvious global events – a solar eclipse was a recent example – didn’t toggle REGs."[5]

Skeptoid says "The problem is that people outside their lab either fail to reach the same conclusions or find their methodology so flawed that it's pointless to even review the findings"... "They make their announcements through mass media, rather than through scientific journals. When respected journals won't touch research, it's a pretty good indicator that there's something wrong. But radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, that promote pseudoscience, are all over it. Another warning is that their claim is based on some unknown form of energy or force. Also, the claim fails the Occam's Razor test" and goes on to list many flaws.[6]

Robert Park in a book on superstition refers to "the total absurdity of the Global Consciousness Project claims."[7]

The Skeptico debates are disappointing, Alex Tsakiris seems to be very credulous.[8][9] See this criticism of him:[10]

Kary Mullis says something sort of nice about them: "I know Radin, and I know he’s not intentionally fooling himself or anybody else."[11]

More faint praise: "One experiment Dr. [Brian D.] Josephson finds intriguing is the Global Consciousness Project"[12]

The NYT says "there is whiff of sandalwood incense here, a dollop of Gaia theory and a pinch of Esalen Institute...All things considered at this point, the stock market seems a more reliable gauge of the national -- if not the global--emotional resonance."[13]

About the Global Orgasm, "Jim Underdown, who investigates paranormal matters in California for the Center for Inquiry-West, plans to join in the fun -- even if he believes there is no way to transmit energy from one's brain to achieve a physical result."You don't need a good reason to have an orgasm," he said. "Even a stupid one is OK.""[14]

The Age: "Yet [Nelson] also concedes that the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to"[15]

USA Today: "Some experts, however, would question the project's analysis of the Sept. 11 data. A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers, says Woollcott Smith, professor of statistics at Temple University in Philadelphia."[16]

Fences&Windows 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

World Domination update

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the lede of the Protocols of Zion you'll find that this two-word expressions precisely the one used to describe the Plot; so I do not know what reason you have to oppose the Merge. Can you be more specific as to why you oppose? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

About the death panel redirect

I almost understand what you say about consensus. Anyone that clicks on a link does so for one reason - to learn more. Editors at the Political positions of Sarah Palin page strongly prefer the less is more approach. They have their reasons, but there is extreme tension between what they desire, and what anyone who wants to learn more would want. It's impossible to poll people who click on links, but it's possible to get a very good guess as to their consensus, which is to learn.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascism portal links and sidebar

Since you reverted the edit, it is incumbent on you to provide a rationale. Could you please justify the addition of the portal of which Pinochet is not a member? Can you provide a scholarly aanalysis about the regime that shows the coporatism and other neccesary prongs that must be met to be fascist. I eagerly anticipate your sources and if justified, your adding of Pinochet to the actual Wiki project Fascism. --Die4Dixie (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Socialism

Yes but the majority of the content on here does not use British spelling, I think the articles need to be consistent. --Jt white93 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)