To start a new discussion you may use this link: New discussion

Archives

early NPP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1516 17

Thanks for your great work on the superlens article!!! EdSaperia (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you are expressing useful views regarding the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics page. It seems that every so often someone must start a fork or insist that the article be cut down to some kind of simplistic gee whiz content. I hope we can keep it at a level that will be used to more than the occasional curiosity seeker. Thanks for your help.P0M (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it seems this same conversation comes around every so often. Also, this article deserves my support. And you have done an excellent job with this article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Barnstar of a thousand thanks
	LIke the title says! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steve Quinn, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Steve Quinn! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Steve Quinn. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ended up being rather harsh on the AfD for J.G. Whitfield, and there was no reason for that. Apologies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@3family6:. Actually, to me, you came across quite even handed. I think you presented your case well. I was going on information based on other unreliable music and entertainment sites that I have encountered. Thanks for saying the above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to hear that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read your message. I wanted you to know that I was not attempting to out the editor, they self outed during the course of the requested arbitration case. The information they provided stated only that they have been employed by motor vehicle companies - Land Rover in the past and Ford at present (if I recall correctly). I simply took these observation and the more recent posts and conjectured a few things. As for the fish on a line remark, that stems from Plato's Republic (after a fashion), in which Socrates opines that justice, on some level is "...minding one's own business." In this sense then, I've taken an unjust action in filing for arbitration, and I think in an attempt to counter that point amidst two or three other posts at ANI and COIN our editor made some comments that they perhaps did not think the whole way through, and having accordingly been further pulled into noticeboard actions I think that they may have gotten desperate - as a fish out of water does - to get back into the water and return to their school. In fairness I can't blame anybody for that, I was recently on the receiving end of a rather heinous action by a tag team on here and I myself am still bitter over it, so I certainly understand where the post could come off as being harsh.

As for the Uranium pellets remark, I've been tracking a below-the-radar LTA account whose offline posts make proving connections difficult at times. In the case of the LTA editor, I have the pellets, the moderating material, and sense for when there is mischief inside that radioactive cesspool. In the case of carmaker1, I have his proof of employment which would suggest that he is here to push an agenda (we've had cases like this before, such as when the North Face tried boosting their product placement using Wikipedia) but unlike the ongoing LTA case I see no apparent malicious intent to edit, just a general absence of civility in the editing which echos an earlier case I filed on similar grounds for Joefromrandb.

Most importantly, though, is this: you have nothing to apologize for. I may be an admin, but Admins be for the contributors, meaning ultimately my goal is to help you and yours edit in peace. The drawback to being an admin is that you're part of the vanguard force, and when you spend everyday on the tip of the spear you do forget that the spear itself has uses other than simply being thrust at or into someone else. Being reminded of that does us all good, as it shows that you cared enough to inquire and that I need to do a better job of assuming good faith. For that I thank you.

If you would like further elaboration on anything posted above, or if something I said and/or did still doesn't sit right with you, let me know and I'd be happy to attempt to explain or to work with you to solve the issue.

Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TomStar81: Thanks very much for your response. It is appreciated. Based on this response, I can tell that doing a good job for Wikipedia really matters to you. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He already had 3 warnings in edit warring, including a previous block, but he still insist in doing it his way. Me and the others find him extremely difficult to communicate with. He basically doesn't response until you change his edit. How are we suppose to cope with his behaviour ?

Hunan201p, knows very well he can always comment on the Genghis Khan talk page with me and editor 3family6, but he doesnt do it. The disputes ( between myself, Hunan201p and 3family6 ) was already long settled. that Genghis Khan having red hair isn't confirmed. Hunan201p clearly doesn't dispute on this concensus fact on the talk page anymore, but it seems he could care less about it and just continue his ways in one way or the other. Knowing he couldn't give a bias edit of red hair on Genghis Khan article because of your warnings, he insist to keep doing the same on other wikipedia pages, without anyone ever finding out. At this point he don't care what the facts are, he just intentionlly want people to be misleaded and read the info he wants people to see. He insist in including Genghis Khan and his sons having red hair.I told him about it but all he does is the same thing.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan#Physical_appearance ( Genghis Khan talk page )
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&action=history (revision history of red hair)

Hunan201p avoided my reply in the blond talk page since 4th of May. He removed my edit, refuse to respond to me in blond talk page, making false claims in the edit summary. I find it very difficult like this. There had been a concensus agreement of 5-6 editors to remove Huangdi from blond page in the blond talk page and Fringe theory but he doesn't reply none of the questions properly and just cherrypick his answers.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (Fringe theories noticeboard)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&action=history (revision history on blond)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond#Hunan201p_edits_in_the_blond_and_red_hair_section (talk page on blond and red hair, he made no attempt to discuss about this with me)

Admin Evergreen removed Hunan201p on The Mongolian warlord, Bodonchar Munkhag having blond hair and accusing Tobb72 of being malicious account in 17:32, 13 April 2020 but Hunan201p changed it back in 02:42, 14 April 2020. He was asked in the talk page by shinoshijak but avoided to answer, he simply chose not answer and he did the same to me..Queenplz (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Queenplz: I left a warning on their talk page. It went unheeded, so now I am going to ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are a few of the links to that ANI [1], [2], [3]. The text is in the section entitled: "Disruptive editing in Blond and Red hair." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note

I saw your report and I would suggest reviewing his edits on the other articles; e.g. Turkic peoples. It seems some of the reliable sources removed or misrepresented cause of WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Some stuff was added by socks of this sockmaster User:WorldCreaterFighter. But if they're reliable content, you may like to restore them. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wario-Man: Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recently been refreshing my decades-old physics knowledge by watching physics lectures on YouTube. I was feeling pretty good about this stuff, following all the lectures, pleased that, even if I've forgotten some of the details, I still had the fundamentals down. Then I saw your user page with the metamaterials photo. Negative index of refraction? Mind blown. Just totally blown. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'd like to end the redirect of Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies to SOAS (which doesn't even mention the publication). It's on Scopus, etc. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=5800207874&tip=sid Can I assume that doing this will not be an issue? Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheijiashaojun. Yes. I believe it is listed in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Scopus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve, may I please restore your comment on my talk page. I have prepared a very full and I hope very careful response that I want to use, that expresses what I currently feel about the entire justification for WP. I know I could restore it without your ok, but I'm not comfortable doing that. I don't think what you said was either unreasonable, or unreasonably strong, tho I do not agree with some of it--I'm more inclusionist than you. (And if not, I do have a technique for answering questions that for one reason or another have been removed.) DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG, Thanks for saying you thought what I said was not unreasonable or unreasonably strong. That was my concern. Yes, feel free to restore my comment. And I am interested in what you have to say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, i intended it as a summary. I've done a few others from time: me tIedo collect them, but on WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC) .Reply[reply]

I see your remove the qy you pinged me about. you prob. noticed 2 were by the founder. All organizations live by PR, even those of high quality and importance. Tho, interestingly, WP lives by the autonomously generated pr from its users; the WMF "communications" dept has very little to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had just started the article on Jimmy Allen (pastor) but have had other matters come up to where I can't complete things. I will get to it once things settle down around here. Quidam65 (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quidam65 no problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you revert my edits to Authority having jurisdiction and call them a "hoax"? I was trying to start an article; was that not the correct procedure? 99.197.202.188 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

99.197.202.188 because it was a redirect changed into one line of text without reliably sourced references. I don't think there is coverage by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. So, it looks like a hoax to me. You are welcome to change it back if you produce reliable sources for the subject. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, a dictionary definition is not enough for an article. Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! With regards to the Butler International AfD, I recommend you get access to The Wikipedia Library, which is indispensable for research if you don't have access to a lot of sources. You should easily qualify, and if you want newspapers.com in particular you can submit an application, as I did recently (well, a renewal application). Cheers! Ovinus (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ovinus thanks very much. I didn't realize The Wikipedia Library had such capabilities. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I agree that the remark was a personal attack and off topic. It was also incorrect. I try to ignore personal attacks against me because supplying such comments with oxygen seems counter-productive. Thanks again - happy editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Steve, I've just moved this edit from Racial views of Donald Trump back to User:Steve Quinn/sandbox using the merge history feature so there isn't an anachronistic 2016 edit in the article's history. I came across this article due to this fascinating paper, in which the Donald Trump racial views articles is mentioned. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn’t aware a synopsis section required a source. I was away from 2016-2019, so let me know if the polices and guidelines were changed during that time. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viriditas as far as I know the only place in an article where sourcing is not specifically required is the introduction. For other sections of an article, the requirement of independent sources is consistent across Wikipedia, as far I know. If you know of a guideline or policy that says a Synopsis section (even in WP:MOS) doesn't require sourcing I'd like to know about that. I'm not trying to be difficult. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing isn’t required for a brief synopsis or plot section because the source is the primary subject. This is why most plot and synopsis sections don’t have sources. The reason well formed lead sections don’t require sourcing (except for direct quotes) is because it is assumed the body already cites the material summarized in the lead. I am not in a good position to cite the exact policies and guidelines, but it would be helpful to seek clarification on this, as things do change over time, and there’s a chance what I’m saying is no longer as true as it was in 2016. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viriditas Well, how about this for now. Go ahead and put the Synopsis section back, without the tag, and cite the primary source it is from - which is probably the book itself. That way readers know where the information comes from. And I think this is acceptable because notability has already been established by the independent sources for the subject of the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will wait a bit, as I may be able to a better job with another go around. Of course, if you would like to give it a whirl, by all means, have at it. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to follow up, please notice, the recent Featured Article Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, contains no footnotes in the synopsis section. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Viriditas:. Ok thanks. It is interesting that it is a featured article. Also, I may have come across the guideline you were talking about - that says the synopsis or plot section doesn't require sourcing because it is derived from the book. Let me see if I can find it again. I want to analyze this situation. Maybe we can discuss it, and get to the bottom of this . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if people are not editing according to Steve Quinn then there is something wrong with Wikipedia, not with me! Obviously ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for being a good sport. It is obviously a confusing issue, so anything you can find on this will help clarify, and perhaps we can pave the way for others by updating the guidelines so as to prevent further confusion in the future. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viriditas I think WP:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOTSOURCE is what you were referring to. But, reading the first two paragraphs of WP:V, it seems WP:V is in conflict with PLOTCITE and PLOTSOURCE --Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I could swear I had this discussion before! It was a long, long time ago, in a Wiki far, far away. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not aware of such a discussion but it makes sense that it came up. Was there any resolution? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randy, and has been stated already in this discussion - the sources in that article do not support an independent article. In fact, this has been stated a number of times on that talk page prior to the Straw Poll section. This has been said in the sections entitled "Sources," "Discussion," and "Fiction proposal." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this "straw poll discussion" section see where Viriditas says, "The only problem that I can see with that version, is the majority of the sources are from Leary rather than from secondary source coverage. That's the crux of the issue, which is why a redirect to the biography is a good short-term solution until someone can flesh out the article with secondary sources. When he says "Leary" he is refering to primary sources in general. Primary sources will not support an article on Wikipedia. Also, he indicates that if or when secondary sources can be garnered for this article then that will be a different thing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is trying to destroy this article. In fact very much the opposite. A redirect will preserve the article for as long as Wikipedia is in existence. Therefore if secondary sources are gathered to directly support the content of the article it can return to standing on its own. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I can copy the Bibliography and, if relevant, the external links to the redirected page. But the Bibliography section will probably be in a "Further reading" section on the redirected page.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have to sign off for now. Be back later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking such a concern about this, although I don't know what the problem is with keeping the long-term article. Although others are saying it doesn't fit, I read WP:SECONDARY as agreeing with me that Wilson's 1983 book about Leary's model, which came out 10 years after Leary's work, is a valid secondary source. It is a book written about the topic. Where it overlaps and develops new information, it is a primary source, but where it comments on Leary's model it fits the WP:SECONDARY's language. What am I missing that moves it off of secondary source status into a non-valid source. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's where the disconnect lies. I don't see how Wilson's book could be used as a reliable secondary source in your example. I think it might be permitted as an ancillary, less-than-reliable secondary source, used sparingly. The problem you are running into is that the eight circuit model is already considered fringe science. When that happens, supporting secondary sources have to be extraordinarily reliable. Wilson doesn't come close to that, but might be acceptable for use in another context. This is why I recommend creating articles about Leary's books where he mentions eight-circuit (or similar) models and finding secondary sources about those works to support it. When you've finished doing that, then you can see if there's enough reliable secondary sources for a stand alone article. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except it's not science, as Leary mentions in the 1973 book. You've called it philosophy, which fits. And it's not really a theory, but as titled, a model. But the fringe theories editors have labeled it fringe, so it must be fringe, and then Wilson's full book on Leary's model, which I really can't understand how it doesn't fit WP:SECONDARY, can be dismissed as fringe too. See how that works. I'm not invested enough or know enough about Leary to create and bring to mainspace newer articles about his work, and hopefully some editors will do so. Your work was a good start, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just re-read WP:SECONDARY. Every word fits Wilson's 1983 book analyzing the 1973 and 1977 model put forward by Leary. Where Wilson presents new ideas that falls into primary and can't be used, but his commentary on Leary's work seems to fit WP:Secondary, so no, I don't know how it doesn't (which is why I asked here). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The key word here isn’t secondary, it’s reliable. NPOV also comes into play. I really think you should reconsider creating at least one of the four missing book articles, because it will give you hands on experience with how it works. Exo-Psychology (1977) is the logical place to start. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree, although you folks have the numbers. Thanks for the advice, I don't even have the book as far as I recall. I'm not an expert on Leary, but seem to know more than most, especially young editors who diminish him as just a '60s druggie which is what started all of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of these books are freely available at the Internet Archive. If you actively engage with the subject by trying to create articles about it, you will discover the reliable secondary sources that you need. For some strange reason, you have completely misinterpreted this process as some kind of an attack on Leary and your own position. Looking quickly for reliable secondary sources about Exo-Psychology, the first I came across was by sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge. They refer to the book as that of a "new mystical philosophy of outer space civilization", and they put this in the historical context of psychoactive drug use. I would invite you to do the same research and see this for yourself. This kind of academic analysis of the history and methods of psychedelia isn’t an attempt to denigrate but rather to understand. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your continued advice, it just doesn't feel right for me. Thanks for trying a few times. Your analysis about me is not correct, nobody is attacking anyone outside of normal Wikipedia disagreement activity. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we came in and demanded better sourcing, which is normal WP, but now as more sources are turning up everyone is just sticking to their first impressions and not reading anything new. Something like Higgs was what i was asking for so now why the rush to redirect? An additional point about Wilson as independent, Leary says something in either Starseed or Neurologic about a 'network', then Wilson forms 'The Network' and helps to promote his space migration ideas. Anyway, don't think it's quite fair to demand better sourcing, then just ignore and not give time to evaluate when those sources when found. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiveby. Sorry that you feel ignored. I will check out the Higgs source you are talking about. But I think this is about getting something definitive done with the page. It can always be resurrected if independent sourcing supports it. People have been discussing what to do with this page since 2011 on the talk page.---17:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, i don't feel ignored at all, but do think we've moved the goalposts here. The original issue was that there was not enough in depth coverage for good content, which has been addressed i think. I'd defer to Viriditas on how best to organize that content, but just don't think it's fair to Randy Kryn to move immediately to redirect the article. fiveby(zero) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if the Higgs book works out, most likely the content cannot be restored to Randy's preferred version. The book will most like have a summation of the circuit-model, and perhaps the history surrounding it. That's very different than the WP:OR that the article currently consists of, and perhaps some WP:SYNTH. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Psychonautics researchers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. jps (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims. Viriditas (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the event that you don't listen to the podcast Decoding the Gurus with Christopher Kavanagh and Matthew Browne, they really went after Michael Shermer in their latest podcast. I don't know where you get your podcasts, but it's on Apple as well as Spotify. I'm not sure, but I think their episode was a response to Shermer appearing on this podcast. I think it was mostly fair (but there were a few instances here and there where they straw manned an argument or two against Shermer). The overall point of the hosts, is that Shermer, like Sam Harris and many others, has far too often used his right-leaning libertarianism in service of his skepticism. However, the hosts do acknowledge that on issues outside of politics, Shermer does a yeoman's job, but ding him on current issues related to Alex Jones and various QAnon conspiracy theories, where he seems to be somewhat milquetoast when he's wearing his skeptic hat. I think the hosts mostly got this right, but it's kind of sad to see them take him down a notch. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit[4] from the merge includes a student paper[5] that is obviously not an RS. Not sure how to fix it. Any ideas? Doug Weller talk 08:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix it at the moment. Do you think the student paper is an independent source? I was hoping the author would publish more in a bona fide academic journal. This is because she says in this paper: "Currently, I’m working to publish this research with my undergraduate faculty mentor," (page 26, Post & Lintel, Fall 2022). Of course it is only August 2023, and it may take a while to publish this particular research. I can recommend checking the page from which this content was merged to see if there is any RS there. I will take a look at it myself when I get the chance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I sent you a mail, hopefully you can look into it and let me know what you think,

Regards. LothofOrkney (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]