User talk:SurfingOrca2045

January 2023

Regarding cryonics

I happen to agree with you that it has potential, but Wikipedia cannot be the place to begin changing extant scientific or mainstream perceptions; it cannot be the place to right great wrongs because then anything goes and the mission of writing a verifiable encyclopedia becomes far more difficult.

The article as it stands, from a quick read through, seems to present various perspectives, possibilities, and challenges. It's not an attack page. I imagine it could be better - there is always room for improvement - but I suggest that as you have a strong opinion in the matter, you make extra effort to write from a detached neutral point of view - perhaps proposing edits on the talk page, since you're currently blocked from editing it. And please assume good faith. CharredShorthand.talk; 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia articles should stay "behind the curve" on scientific change. However, the cryonics page seems to go beyond a strict adherence to that policy. A lot of the content on the page was written in a way that openly promotes skepticism and that makes the neutrality of the article a lot more contentious.

It's not just about the scientific facts and perspectives; the wording of the article is the most concerning part, IMO. Unfortunately, the consensus there is extremely resistant to change at the moment, so I'm waiting until less debatable evidence emerges--namely, the successful reanimation of a patient. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to interacting more constructively in the future, and in vain towards your reanimation hopes. - Roxy the dog 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also look forward to interacting more constructively, at least until the first reanimation. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should read my user page. It explains my interpretation of the WP rules. Remember that once it meets the low threshold of pseudoscience (and it does), then it's supposed to be lopsided and disparaging. That's the whole point. I estimate it will be well over 100 years before patients can be uploaded, so you won't get justice in your lifetime. But we're already uploading fruit fly brains, and it might not be too long until we figure out how to turn them on. So some interesting things might still happen in your lifetime. I'm investing $750k per year in research, and that number will probably go up over time. So I'm going to try to make this happen as fast as possible. But WP is not the place to fight the battle. JordanSparks (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi, seeing some edits at Twitter Files. Please be advised that we do not use opinion sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing pseudoscience and fringe science which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why you need to post the template again, considering that you have already posted it before. [1] SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparently the wrong template (unknown to me, the templates changed recently while keeping the same names). On the advice of an admin I deleted it and posted this correct variant instead. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It feels unnecessary to edit it again, considering that the issues have already been resolved. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedural reason why it is necessary: if you were ever to be reported to WP:AE it would need to be shown you had received this particular notice. Bon courage (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAWYER. Also, notices cannot be given retroactively. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do at all with WP:LAWYER. I have no idea what you mean about this notice not being able to give retroactively. The old "discretionary sanctions" system created by the Arbitration Committee was recently overhauled and even I, who was elected to the Committee twice, and taking a while to get a grasp of the changes. And it was me that pointed out to User:Bon courage that they'd made a mistake. You are now clearly aware of this particular set of topics. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the events transpired before the issuance of the updated notice. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:WL? You seem familiar with these slightly obscure wikilinks after a short editing career. To ensure transparent WP:SCRUTINY could you clarify: have you edited Wikipedia with accounts other than SurfingOrca2045? Bon courage (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avid reader. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand: was that a yes or a no? If yes, please name the account(s). Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness alerts are only given after edits related to the subject. You were simply given the wrong alert and that was corrected. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics editing

You're already blocked from the Cryonics article for tendentious editing. It is extremely unwise to make the same sorts of edits on associated articles, especially in an area designated as a contentious topic. Please reconsider what you've been doing. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, consensus has not stated that these edits are "false" on other articles. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics notice

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Please read wP:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask me to read that? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you appear to have made one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]