I'm at least temporarily semi-retired from Wikipedia
I'm at least temporarily semi-retired from Wikipedia, as it's proving too much of a distraction from more important things. I had intended to be fully retired at least until if and when I had completed some of those 'more important things', but so far that has proved too difficult. If I do succeed in completing 'some of those more important things', I plan to eventually return, though I'm not sure when (and I may eventually decide that returning would be a mistake).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see my edit counts for 2017 and 2018 are now above my previous peaks in 2013 and 2014, so I guess I must have unwittingly come out of semi-retirement quite some time ago. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(However I was unable to access my account from mid January 2020 until today, and I'm not sure how busy I will be now that I'm back) Tlhslobus (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Just making sure you know that what you're adding to Moby-Dick and Herman Melville doesn't quite follow policy. For one thing, the tone is very unencyclopedic and full of weasel words. It comes across as original research, which is not allowed. You also can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, so never put it as a footnote (especially if it's a reference to info that you added to another article; that's definitely OR). --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article begins by asserting:

'The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based.'

As a mere layperson who has no wish to get into an edit-war against actual or alleged experts, I am reluctant to correct what nevertheless seems to me to be a common abuse of language in that statement (which seems acceptable in everyday speech but arguably not in an encyclopedia article about logic), namely the use of the word 'rational' when one means 'logical'.

For instance self-delusion through wishful thinking is illogical, in that it violates rules of logic, but it may well be perfectly 'rational' if it fulfils the person's rational desire to remain happy or to become happier, or even it doesn't but if the person mistakenly thinks that it will, or hopes that it might, or whatever. Discourse intended to achieve such a rational objective is then arguably 'rational discourse', no matter how much it violates rules of logic.

Much the same can probably also often be said of much discourse in pursuit of a rational motive to deceive others (which arguably means something like almost half of all discourses in almost any debate on almost any subject).

I may eventually amend the text myself (if I remember), but first I'd prefer to wait and see if somebody with more expertise than me can amend it better. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Tlhslobus!

I agree with you that the leading sentence of this article is misleading, and is not entirely correct.

The idea is derived from Aristotle's Metaphysics, and it is held to be dogmatically correct by the entire Aristotelian world of philosophers and theologians. For this historical and political reason, if you change it, you will likely find yourself in an edit war that you cannot possibly win. For every valid reference you suggest, there are a thousand against you!

Their underlying argument is that the world is just as Aristotle described it (this, of course, is incorrect according to modern, post-Galilean science, but is correct according to ancient, and still practiced Aristotelian science). This is what Rosa is saying. The second half of their argument is that people are Aristotelian thinkers, and to them the laws of thought naively define rationality. This half is almost entirely correct. You and I are the exceptions. We see the difference. Regards, BlueMist (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated thanks, BlueMist, but it looks like you were too pessimistic (see User_talk:67.166.211.24#Congrats_and_Thanks), though you may well have been right to think that I couldn't have fixed it, so quite likely I owe you thanks for sparing me from a distressing losing edit war. If so, thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm on your side. 'Thought' is much more than narrow propositional language with strict adherence to classical logic. The traditional 'laws of thought' are a false claim to the contrary. BlueMist (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, BlueMist, though sometimes I worry that I shouldn't do anything to correct such mistakes, on the grounds that the more confused people are about the true nature of things like thought, the longer it may take us to develop the kind of Artificial Intelligence that will eventually take over (and perhaps keep us as pets, if we're lucky). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your "heads up". Appreciated, and feeling a little heartwarmed to find someone responding. Yes, what you wrote at this is very interesting/disturbing. I agree wholeheartedly and commented further there. Seems a vital issue to me, even if it seems to exercise so few. Ahh, the lot of the dissident! LookingGlass (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, LookingGlass. I added a further brief comment there on who is calling whom 'anti-social', given that persecution is profoundly anti-social. I also mention there that this may be a case of what psychologists call 'Projection', where accusation is really a form of confession. I wonder will that get me in trouble as an alleged ad hominem attack - my defence would probably be to quote WP:IAR (which says to ignore all rules if this is necessary to improve Wikipedia). But I may in fact have been far too mild, as I think that pychologists would actually say that they have a technical term to describe those who single people out for persecution, persecute people, and celebrate and cheer on persecution, and that term is 'psychopath'. But I think admins might ban me if I dared to say so in that place. And they might be right to ban me if I did, as I have concerns that psychologists use of the term 'psychopath' as a highly pejorative label for huge numbers of people may often itself be dangerously oppressive, so I possibly or probably shouldn't go down that route myself. Also such a label might be more appropriate for the author of the 'Fuckhead' article than for the author of the 'dick' article. And even the 'Fuckhead' author may simply have been rather innocently trying to amuse or shock. And so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LoL All things in moderation? Psychologist are surely above being pejorative, surely a psychopathic symptom if ever there was one?! ;) I rather like the research concluding that successful entrepreneurs and business people tend to be sociopaths (psychopaths). Nice to have the boot on a foot placed where it should be imho. Anyway, a good dose of pejorativeness cleans out the tubes I find, even if it does get me into endless trouble. Words should be understood as the fragile things they are. They do their best but we lean on them far too much. It's all about balance, isn't it? I love the wiki "ignore all rules" rule. That one will definitely be put into my quiver. I seem to have ignored "my" rule of replying on my talk page. Knew there HAD to be a good reason! LookingGlass (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid shrinks tend to classify business people as psychopaths, but 'sociopath' seems to be a term they reserve for classifying the rest of us - at least judging by one famous Irish legal case (the Kerry Babies enquiry) in which a shrink gave it as his professional opinion that the woman at the centre of the case was a sociopath. Her lawyer asked him to define the term, and after he did so, the lawyer asked him would he agree that this definition would describe about half the population - and he replied Yes :)

Ahh, hired guns! The words claimed or originated by social sciences cannot be defined as those of natural sciences can. Barristers use this fact to build their attacks on opposing expert witnesses. It makes good headlines, and sways juries if the theatre is good enough, but little more :) LookingGlass (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right in general, but I can't help suspecting that this may be one of the exceptions 'that proves the rule' (as the popular saying goes, despite (or maybe because of) the fact that an exception can disprove a rule, but never prove it). As far as I remember, the shrink wasn't really a hired gun, just somebody who got dragged into the case by circumstances, and the lawyer under the circumstances was just doing what he was supposed to do (after all, the shrink agreed the lawyer was right, so it would seemingly have been gross negligence for the lawyer not to ask his question). So it may well be that this incident does actually tell us something about social sciences in general and/or shrinks in particular. Then again that may just be wishful thinking on my part, and I'd expect most shrinks to agree that's all it is :) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your addition Tihslobus and your offer of help. Appreciated. Now, "where" "should" this conversation be held? Your Talk page, my Talk page or the article. I get dizzy!  :) LookingGlass (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ochlocracy Talk page seems best, at least until there's any evidence to the contrary, on the basis that it shows what was in earlier parts of the conversation, as a possibly useful reminder. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed some of your additions to Prophecy of the Popes. The Bruno book is published by Xulon Press, which means it is self-published, and fails WP:SPS. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The problem with talking about "foreign clubs" is that most of the talk revolves around Welsh and, to a lesser extent, Scottish participation. It's rather inaccurate I'd argue for clubs from one part of the UK to be regarded as "foreign" in another part of the same country. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Chris. That was why I called the section "Non-English", not "foreign". I simply assumed it was you who had changed it to "foreign" and I didn't want an argument about it. If you want to change it back to "Non-English" (with or without "club"), you would have my full support on that. (I'm posting this on both our Talk pages, to be sure you don't miss it - if you want to continue the conversation, please let me know which Talk page you prefer; I'm putting your Talk page on my watchlist, if I haven't done so already). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't like "non-English", "Celtic" might do instead, though it has its own problems (such as Cornish clubs, and because in theory the section should be available for anybody wishing to report on any future actual or hypothetical proposals to add Continental clubs, such as already happens in Rugby Union (2 Italian clubs in the Celtic League) and Rugby League (where the Catalans play in an otherwise all UK top tier league), or for any editor simply wishing to briefly point out the absence of such proposals in the PL in contrast to those other leagues). But I'm not really bothered, as, by and large, no such wording deprives the reader of any important info, nor supplies it either. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now see you had already made the change to 'Non-English clubs'. Thanks, and please ignore the stuff about "Celtic" above as out-of-date Tlhslobus (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi: (as this is the first time I've used this feature - please bear with me as I become familiar with it.) Just to say that I am an old friend of the author of the recent Justin Fashanu (JF) biography. He and I have been thinking about trying to improve the JF entry and we were very pleased to see the work you have been doing on it. We were thinking of making changes to add some missing information, give better sources and to question some of the material in the ‘allegation and suicide’ section. As you will appreciate these revisions emerged from the writing of the biography. However in view of the good work you have done we decided we would like to make contact to see whether you would be interested in working collaboratively. If so then I can email you some of our proposed revisions. But, even if this wasn't of interest, it would still be good to hear back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcb (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don't wish to get involved in a collaboration with people who seem to have a financial vested interest in the matter. On the other hand, you don't need my permission or my collaboration to make reliably-sourced amendments. These can perhaps include information sourced to Jim Read's book if it's deemed a reliable source - I see no clear reason why it wouldn't be - the expression for its publisher DB Publishing (defunct since January 2013, according to something I found on Google, but continuing with e-books as JMD Media), gets nearly 5000 hits on Wikipedia Search, of which about 125 seem to be genuine references to sports books published by it.. Other editors (not necessarily me) may dispute whatever you add (including whoever deleted the bit about Jim Read's book as alleged advertising). I-forget-which section of Wikipedia's rules deals with such conflict-of-interest problems (some admin may tell you about it, if you want to ask them - I may or may not be contacting some admin myself for advice on the matter). I should perhaps (or perhaps not) mention that I'm not particularly interested in wasting any more of my time on Justin Fashanu - I just read the article after hearing his niece on BBC2 Newsnight, then made a few mods to bring the text into line with the quoted sources (particularly The Times and the BBC), then, after somebody 'tidied up' my prose, I made a few more mods to correct some excessive and misleading 'tidying-up'. On both occasions, like other editors, I left out arguably relevant allegations in those two sources which I feared, perhaps mistakenly, might violate Wikipedia guidelines on what can be said about living people - if you want to include that sort of stuff, ask an admin and don't ask me. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, in case you're interested, I forgot to mention that when making my original mods I also copied some stuff about Justin Fashanu to the suicide note article. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now got the following advice from an Admin, which I'm passing on to you:

The main thing in my opinion when dealing with persons with obvious COI issues is to suggest that they only suggest edits on the talk page, not make them themselves. They don't always like that idea and they don't actually have to do it, but it makes them appear more credible and willing to respect our policies. If they are slanting the article on one direction or another we have a dedicated noticeboard at WP:COIN for dealing with that.

Tlhslobus (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to express to you that, before 9/11, which I personally experienced very intimately in NYC, the Tian An Men revolt and its suppression was the most personally traumatic political event of my life. Please be assured my opposition to the Chen article has nothing to do with my hopes for China. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just made a really big edit to the English football clubs in international competition article, correcting a lot of style issues, etc. I realise you've made a fair few edits to the same article in the time it took me to make this one, and so there was an edit conflict that resulted in me overwriting your last few contributions. Instead of you reverting me to get your contributions back, is there any chance you could just re-add your stuff in a new edit? This would save me another multi-hour editing process. Believe me, I did not make this edit to cause you unnecessary grief, but there was no way it could be avoided. – PeeJay 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll try adding it back, if I can. But maybe in future you could break your edits into smaller sections + save a copy of larger changes, to avoid problems on this scale?Tlhslobus (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no way I could do that without making the article look inconsistent throughout for a short period. Plus, my edit was broken up by me leaving the house for a good proportion of yesterday. Sorry for the inconvenience, but there really was nothing I could do. – PeeJay 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, Peejay, least said soonest mended. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English football clubs in international competition may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• UEFA Champions League|2008]]), and [[Manchester United]] ([[2008–09 UEFA Champions League|2009]])) going on to be runners-up, and [[Manchester United]] going on to win an all-English final against [
• Champions League|2011]]),and [[Chelsea F.C.|Chelsea]] in [[2011–12 UEFA Champions League|2012]]) over the next four seasons (2010 to 2013), although [[Manchester United]] went on to be runners-up

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and thanks for your contributions, I made some changes to Dua’s Layer, writing medical articles needs adherence to scientific methodology, my purpose was to apply those guidelines, please feel free to revert or modify the changes I made if you think they are inappropriate.Kiatdd (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Kiatdd. I have no problem with your changes. My problems are with the lack of a clear and explicit statement that it's still only a possible discovery, but I'm bringing that up on the Dua's Layer Talk page, as well as making my own attempt to fix th matter.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've put in the above help request (about half an hour ago, at 08.22 according to this page's history) as advised at WP:BLP. I've written up a brief summary of my concerns, but I'm not sure whether I should be posting them here, as they name, briefly describe, and link to Wikipedia pages that may violate BLP, mainly because they contain lots of mostly unsourced criticism (and praise) of at least one living person, or link to such a Wikipedia page. I expect to be going to bed fairly shortly. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BLP Noticeboard is the best place to bring the problems up. You shoould get a quick response by editors experienced in dealing with BLP issues. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tlhslobus, Sorry it looks like I misspoke. The essays Don't Be Inconsiderate and Don't Be Obnoxious can be found on the Template:Wikipedia essays under Civility AND on Template:Civility. The essay Don't be a Dick does NOT appear on either of those templates. But obviously there is a third template where DICK is being removed and reverted and I'm at a loss to know where that is  :-( -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's here, Keithbob. And the new 'The No Asshole Rule' is here.The Wikipedia:Civility article is liable to be one of the first that many new editors read, because they are automatically asked to read Wikipedia:Five pillars - the fourth of these pillars is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility which links to Wikipedia:Civility when you click on it. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, that means these guidelines may well be read by child editors, and this may mean there are WP:Child Protection issues. So I'm going to try to bring the matter to the attention of Wikipedia's child protection officers, but as I'm not entirely sure how to do this, if you know how to do it, please let me know. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. The situation is even more absurd than I had thought. Why is DICK the only essay, to be cited in the see also section? I can't believe editors are actually disputing its removal. My goodness......-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, we had a conversation a while back about "Dickheads, fuckheads, and ochlocracy" and so I have come to you for advice. I hope this isn't out of order. After I requested references to some statements in an article another editor deleted the section together with my requests. As the passage seemed reasonable to me I reverted and explained my reasoning on the Talk page. I think an "edit war" has begun. I am steadily losing interest in engaging with Wikipedia, but would like to see if there exist any processes that might resolve "silly" things (perhaps most edit wars are over these). If you have time/and/or/inclination I would appreciate if you would cast your eye over the Talk page section concerned: Talk:Child_grooming#Unsourced_material, and give me the benefit of your wisdom. p.s The user's Talk page seems to show form :( LookingGlass (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, LookingGlass, belated thanks for your support on the Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead business. I should have thanked you earlier, but I was (and still am) at least mildly traumatised by my experience after raising the child bullying aspect, and I didn't (and still don't) want to write any more about the matter on Wikipedia.

Second, as regards your row with Squeakbox, I think his attitude was, or at least appeared to me, at least mildly uncivil and/or inconsiderate in at least one instance, but unfortunately I also happen to think he is basically right in the substance of the dispute, which may also explain why he has the support of Darkness Shines. The point is that there was text there which had been challenged (by you, and quite rightly) for over 3 months and still lacked any reliable citation in support, so anybody could remove it under WP:V, the relevant text being:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

Your counterquotation of WP:Deletion is understandable but mistaken, as 'deletion' there has a special meaning which is not applicable here:

"Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Unlike page blanking, which can be performed (or reverted) by any user, only administrators can perform deletion. Administrators also can view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion."

By that definition, deletion has not occured here, so WP:Deletion is irrelevant. So, as far as I can see, as regards the substantive issue, your only alternatives would seem to be to try WP:IAR (which I suspect would be exhausting and probably unsuccessful), or WP:BRD (probably same result), or to go through dispute resolution procedures (probably same result), or to ask for advice from somebody more knowledgeable than me, who would typically have to be found on the list of admins (probably same result, but possibly not, and possibly not too exhausting), or to find a reliable source (and you rightly pointed out that the source Squeakbox used was unreliable, though technically not a blog and the relevant citation was in English - it is the opinion of somebody writing under the pseudonym CaritasVeritas claiming Google +Wikipedia as its vague non-specific source, so definitely not reliable).

There remains the civility/consideration issue. I thought he was somewhat out of order to write at his initial deletion "(its not a blog but neevr mind, as of now I am not willing to tolerate this unsourced material in this article and strongly suggest you do not restore without a reliable source)" - specifically the mildly threatening 'I strongly suggest' bit seemed to me quite provocative and uncalled for at that point, as you had done almost nothing to deserve criticism, having simply and correctly deleted his unreliable citation, albeit arguably with a less-than-perfect explanation. (I should point out that I don't know whether you two have been in dispute before, which may or may not be relevant) I suspect it's not worth trying to complain about those few words of debatable and seemingly mild (but nonetheless possibly quite hurtful) incivility or lack of consideration, but I could be wrong (I've never yet formally complained about incivility/lack of consideration myself), and if you want to try, I once again suggest you ask for advice from somebody more knowledgeable than me, who, as already mentioned, would typically have to be found on the list of admins. Sorry I can't be of more help. All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't conceive of how you could have been more helpful Tlhslobus. A beautifully considered considerate honest open and helpful reply is how I'd describe it. And no thanks needed for my support. Happy if it felt useful.

I am surprised by Wiki policies, when I am brought up against them (I often have been when in civil disputes in the courts too come to that, or when doing jury duty etc). Now there comes a brief flash in which I imagine editing the most popular and august page I can think of to demand an inline citation against every single unexplicitly source statement e.g on Einstein (challenge possible for last sentence of first para of intro) or The Founding Fathers (entire introductory passage unsourced). I think I might be able to challenge 20-30% of articles without ever reaching the end of the task, and ould then return after three months and a day to begin wholesale deletion!

Re the grooming article, I think it should be relatively easy to find reliable sources for the passages I asked for citations for - the Butler Schloss Inquiry probably furnished some. Maybe I will hand some over when my "magnus opus" comes to that part ;) but at the moment I've lost the will to live. I'm thinking "that's the way these things go" so there's no point in running against the tide.

You're probably right about my initial brusqueness having started the nonsense rolling. I've just never got the hang of why some people seem to be able to fire off personal insult yet be tolerated while others can be merely short and be blue-pencilled. What an odd world we humans have created with our "rationality"!

Anyway, thanks agsin. Amazzing reply!! And great hearing from you. It's like a breath of fresh air reading your though.

Sorry to hear about the bullying thing, which I somehow missed. I know the boat has sailed, and hit the iceberg probably, but if you can point me in the direction .... I feel that, far from having been a support, I actually went AWOL at the moment some support might have been worth something, even if not to effect a change to the printed outcome.

Take care of yourself. LookingGlass (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, LookingGlass. I think you're being unfair on yourself - mild technical inaccuracy is not brusqueness, and I suspect (but cannot prove) that it wasn't really the inaccuracy that annoyed him, but the fact that you correctly deleted his citation, though I could of course be wrong.

As for deleting 20-30% of Wikipedia for lack of citations, that might be fun but it wouldn't be helpful, whereas at least in theory you could in fact arguably usefully tag 5 to 20% of uncited statements as genuinely requiring citations, though most uncited statements in lead paragraphs actually have supporting citations in the body of the article so perhaps they don't need citations, and many uncited statements probably don't need citations because they are not controversial and liable to be challenged (except by unreasonable people), but that still leaves probably millions of statements which should be challenged and backed by citations. You could then come back after maybe 3 months (there's no clear time specified, but 3 months seems reasonable) to see if citations had been supplied. In theory you could then delete them, but the responsible thing would be first to spend perhaps half an hour to see if you can find reliable online citations yourself (that's recommended somewhere in Wikipedia rules, though as far as I know the rules don't say first wait 3 months, so you presumably can't get at Squeakbox on that count) . If you can't find any, ask yourself is that because the statement is wrong, or because the relevant books don't have enough online snippets, and would deletion improve the article or not, and do you want to chase up citations in libraries yourself, or to leave a message in Talk asking others to do so, and possibly suggesting in Talk another 3 months before deletion. And when you've gone through all that you can delete what seems appropriate, while possibly then getting into an exhausting fight with somebody who objects. This responsible behaviour might well improve Wikipedia, but I haven't tried it myself because I suspect it would be a lot more like hard work than fun. Plus it risks giving people like Squeakbox a license for irresponsible deletions. But if you wanted to do so you could always try a small scale experiment to see whether or not it turned out to be on balance a good idea.

The child bullying aspect of Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead is here, but I don't advise getting involved there. I've written to Arbcom, who have told me there is no bullying issue (after basically telling me that I shouldn't have written to them as paedophilia is not involved, and without answering any of my arguments) and to carry on discussing the matter in Talk if I want to do so (which I don't as there no longer seems any point in wasting my time and causing myself further distress with such discussions). I've thought about other options, but I basically fear the costs risk outweighing the benefits for various strange reasons which it would take me too long to explain.

All the best.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All conjectures most welcome Tlhslobus(as you'll gather from my reply on my Talk page).

I will have a look through the child Bullying piece just for interest. I realise you're not requesting or even recommending anything. By the by I notice the last poster on it was NewYorkBrad. I had a run in with him on an Apollo spaceflight article! Lost/gave up on that one too.

My aim for the "request/deletion sequence" fantasy wasn't to improve the content of wiki, that, surprisingly to me anyway, remains very good, when unattended by ... the usual faces. It was more to draw attention to the absurdity of the wiki codes and the way they're applied (more elsewhere)

LookingGlass (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		for ongoing contributions to discussions of civility. That, is your ongoing contributions. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

² Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Lihaas. (I've already thanked Elijah on his Talk Page). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Djotodia took office in March. It wasn't a "first day" issue, that was my purpose of "shortly after". IHBR-YSA (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IHBR-YSA. I was undoing your two combined changes, for reasons unrelated to 'shortly after', mainly because they removed the word 'minority' that was there as a result of lengthy discussion. They also introduced syntactical errors, although these could have been fixed without an undo, were it not for the 'minority' problem. If you still want to make changes, please discuss it on the relevant Talk page rather than here, preferably after reading the lengthy Christian-Muslim conflict section on that Talk page.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, IHBR-YSA, the main article says: The transitional council, composed of 105 members, met for the first time on 13 April 2013 and immediately elected Djotodia as interim President; there were no other candidates.[113] So I expect 'when' is intended to reflect this, in a way that 'shortly after' does not. However, as mentioned before, that was not my main concern, and if you want to rephrase the sentence to reflect this more accurately, and without altering the Christian-Muslim meanings, then please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK no problem, you explained it pretty well. Thanx. IHBR-YSA (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos on the vcivility. Ive replied on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tlhslobus,

I moved your suggestion from Jimbo's page to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to help it get to the right audience. Please check in there for progress. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, xaosflux, though I hope this thanks hasn't alarmed you with a red notification :) As it happens that move turns out to be excellent. But to avoid any risk of you getting into trouble in future, I should perhaps mention that you do risk upsetting people by making the move yourself when you were only asked to say where it should be moved, thus leaving the requester with the option of accepting your suggestion or not, perhaps especially when it's being moved from Jimbo's page, seemingly before Jimbo has had much of a chance to comment on it. In this case, Jimbo ignored it when making other comments, but this won't be obvious to a requester unless he or she checks, plus the requester can still persuade him-or-herself that Jimbo might have commented on it later. And Jimbo can still see the heading on his Talk page, but the requester won't initially know this, plus the fact that it has been moved seemingly makes it a lot less likely that he will read and comment on it (in theory it shouldn't matter whether he does or not, but in practice many people will think it at least might make a difference, and, for all I know, they may well be right). But as it happens, after giving the matter some thought, I've concluded that any difference he might make is roughly just as likely to be negative as positive, so I'm not too bothered whether he reads it or not, so all's well that ends well. So once again, thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was alarmed (had a red 9 up there this morning). I don't normally move things like that, just was trying to help you get the best audience as soon as possible--please certainly feel free to revert me if you want it to be non-collapsed on that page (though now would risk forking). FWIW, Jimbo's talk page is somewhat unusual, in that it is heavily dealt with by tons of other editors. I would never have done that if it was any other active user's talk page. I actually really do like your idea, and hope it leads to a UI improvement for everyone. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, xaosflux. I don't think it would be a good idea to send it back to Jimbo's page at this point. I may well want to post an update there later, because I get the impression that lots of proposals along these lines have been put forward in the past and are been ignored for some reason (perhaps everybody waiting until somebody comes up with the non-existent perfect solution?), in which case a word of support from Jimbo might help break the logjam. But it's far too early for me to jump to that conclusion at the moment, as Quiddity of WMF has left links at the village pump to lofts of relevant stuff, which I'll have to read and think about before I do anything else on the subject. Thanks again for your help, and all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with the following: How can I get this problem adressed and/or fixed by somebody more capable than me? Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_unofficial_disappearance_theories#Black_hole_or_meteor_strike tells us the following weird rubbish:

and by former Department of Transportation Inspector General Mary Schiavo, who, while appearing on CNN, said that "...a small black hole would suck in our entire universe so we know it's not that."[60]

I don't think Wikipedia should be telling our readers, backed by the authority of a senior official, that a small black hole can suck in our entire universe, which is utter rubbish, though for any number of reasons quite a few readers may not realize this (and that she was presumably joking). So I unsuccessfully tried to fix the problem a while back, explaining my actions here. But I discovered I was outnumbered 2 to 1, and after reading their seemingly unusual interpretation of what supposedly constitutes OR and after looking up their backgrounds, block logs, contributions, etc, I decided that this was one fight I would rather stay out of, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, etc. But I still think the thing as it stands is very wrong and probably violates half a dozen rules about things like undue weight, etc... Is there any way I can do something useful about it without risking an unacceptable degree of distress for myself, maybe by listing it somewhere as something that seemingly needs looking at, preferably by somebody with a better knowledge of how to handle this kind of thing than me (and who, unlike me, may well find it extremely easy to fix)?

Tlhslobus (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not telling readers that "a small black hole can suck in our entire universe", only reporting, correctly, that someone said that. The quote is properly sourced. You may feel that it is trivia and not worth including in the article, but that is the sort of question of editorial judgement that needs to be settled by discussion on the talk page, and it seems that consensus is against you. If you are still not happy, see WP:Dispute resolution; but my advice would be to accept it. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well thanks for replying, JohnCD, though I won't try to pretend that I'm impressed by your analysis (though, for all I know, quite likely even with better analysis you might well have been forced to reach the same conclusion, as quite likely there is no facility of the kind I asked about).

• For possible future reference, it might well have helped if your reply had been worded something like "You may well be right in theory, but in practice..."

• Incidentally please feel free not to read the rest of this, as you're probably busy.

• I certainly don't think the problem with the passage is trivia (and I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that you seem to think that's the problem - and that's not the only thing I think you've got wrong, but we don't have all day).

• Instead I think it's something that can mislead significant numbers of our readers, and as such doesn't belong in Wikipedia, or at least not in its current unqualified form - and it would never be found in that unqualified form in any proper Encyclopedia precisely because proper Encyclopedias are not reckless about whether or not they may be misleading some of their readers.

• Also, it isn't just misleading, it's potentially frightening to some readers. Admittedly it's now old news (and already was by the time I found out about it) so it's locking the stable door after most of the horses have bolted, but as far as I'm concerned even one child having a nightmare because nobody has said it's just a joke is far too high a price to pay for any supposed (and to me hard-to-imagine) benefit of leaving readers to try to work out that it's only a joke. And the cost may be more than nightmares, since the thought of the destruction of the universe might conceivably push somebody near the edge over the edge into depression and/or a nervous breakdown and/or suicide.

• The fact that a quote is properly sourced is irrelevant in this case, per WP:IAR and probably per many of our other rules as well (though I haven't the time or inclination to go looking for them; WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE spring to mind as places to start looking, but quite likely don't apply due to some trivial technicalities).

• Similarly the fact that what Wikipedia says is technically true is also irrelevant given that it's likely to be deeply misleading to many readers - in theory Wikipedia may not be telling readers that a small black hole can swallow the universe, but in practice that's precisely what it is telling many of its readers, and it's pretty outrageous that it's doing that.

• And I'm pretty confident (although perhaps foolishly, as I've never tried, and, as you say, the so-called consensus is against me) that if I went through dispute resolution and stuck at it I would eventually win (but that would require me to think it worth the effort and distress, which I don't). Indeed I reckon (perhaps mistakenly, though at least here I do have a certain amount of experience) it's quite likely I would eventually win even without Dispute Resolution if I thought it worth the effort and distress, but again I don't. (The possible reason I might win is that if you give an unreasonable guy with an unreasonable case and with a lengthy block log enough rope he's quite likely to eventually hang himself, but, once again, it's just not worth the effort and distress).

• Which may be unfortunate for some of our readers (and perhaps in theory also for Wikipedia's long-term reputation, if the world ever got to hear that Wikipedia had spent months seemingly telling the world nonsense about how the universe might be destroyed, though in practice it's seemingly extremely unlikely that the world will get to hear about it, still less pay attention to it)

• On the other hand in theory I may eventually learn from this bad experience to suggest ways in which Wikipedia might improve its handling of this kind of case (but I rather doubt it, for all sorts of reasons).

• Still at least I'll be able to tell myself that in this case I tried, if not my absolute best then at least my reasonable best, and the fact that I failed is more Wikipedia's problem than mine (though unfortunately it may be some of our readers' problem too, but I can't help that).

• Anyway, thanks for your time. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were mentioned in a discussion on the Administrators Notice Board. Sorry that you got dragged into this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, seriously? A female editor making a comment like the one that LB make has happened before? I'm really curious to know the details if you can remember or point me in the direction of where to look. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try and find the diff fairly soon. I should remind you that it was a more wounding comment than the one made about you.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On reflection, Scalhotrod, I think I need first to check relevant privacy rules, and possibly seek advice, etc, which may take a little time. Sorry about that.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I'm more curious than anything. Please do not go to any significant effort to find it and if it crosses the issues you say, then its probably not worth dredging up. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for being so understanding, Scalhotrod. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have a look, but I am not coming to this with any claim to specialist knowledge. The changes I made so far were (the way I recall it) wording changes (to a more encyclopedic style, I hope) without substantial meaning changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Andrew, at least in my view you did indeed achieve a more encyclopedic style with your previous change (and skillfully managed to do so seemingly without provoking further controversy in what has been a contentious area), and a more encyclopedic style might well be precisely what's needed with the remaining problem sentences (which is why I thought you might be a good person for the job). But if it's too much hassle, please don't bother. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I noticed you have created a redirect for this page. It is on my unwritten list of things to do. Maybe this weekend I can get around to it. I was planning to do something like Private Security Authority which I created recently. It's only a start. Hoping some other editors will pick it up. Is it hard to remove a redirect? I'm rusty been on a wikibreak for more than 4 years so I'm still rusty. regardsCathar66 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) PS I'm not a guard just another middle aged aetheist.Cathar66 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Cathar66. I'm not a guard either, just an early old-age eccentric variety of agnostic ignostic skeptic humanist :) There are two ways to deal with the Redirect. Either make it the main article, or create the main article under a different name and change the Redirect to point to the new article. In either case, ensure that all the current info in the current section (the Policing Authority section in the Garda Siochana article) is copied to the new article (unless you think some of that info is inappropriate, in which case you should presumably also correct or remove it from the existing section), and add

Main article: Your Main Article Name

just below the title of that section. Regards and Good Luck. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThanksCathar66 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to be of service, Cathar66. If you need any more help, please feel free to ask - though obviously I can't guarantee that I'll be able to supply the correct answer, as unfortunately I haven't yet been elected Pope, and I consequently lack infallibility :) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't figure out your motivation to post about it. But I took it as insulting a symbol of the Greatest Generation, and as another unnecessary distraction on that talk page, which I why I responded with my occasional hyperbole. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, Milowent, its (in my view) inappropriate use on that project may well also be some kind of insult to that generation, though I'm more concerned with what I see as the project shooting itself in the foot. Meanwhile your reply here leaves it unclear whether you still see the discussion as an unnecessary distraction on that talk page.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're still screwing around over on the GGTF talk page about that image? It seems a waste of your time, to be honest, its simply not that important either way. What kind of article do you work on, btw, do you ever write bios? I see Barbara Tizard needs an article, she died earlier this month.[1]. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stopped 'screwing around' on it quite some time ago, but I still try to answer as best I can when somebody there talks to me, as I just did. It's not that important in the sense that there seems to be no possibility of a consensus for change. On the other hand in terms of its potential for harming the project, it seems to me that it got a lot more important, given that it now seems the image can be used by enemies of the project as 'evidence' that women are 'at war', with 'the enemy' being male editors, who are implicitly being portrayed as 'like the Nazis'. Any member of the Wikiphallocracy should see it as a godsend. But with no prospect of consensus for change there's nothing I can do about that.

I don't normally write articles (I've produced 3 little-better-than-stubs in 6 years). Instead I amend things when I see a need for amendment that I'm able and willing to supply, or I raise the issue on Talk when I'm not able (as I did in this case, without success). So I'm afraid I won't be producing Barbara Tizard's biography, and I'm sure there are people out there, especially women, who are willing and able to do it far better than I ever could. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But in any case, following my distressing experience of feeling 'mobbed' on the GGTF for what I thought (and still think) was a perfectly reasonable attempt to draw attention to what I saw was a problem (and what I now see as a potentially far worse problem), I think it would be pretty insane of me to go anywhere near a woman's biography (or any other woman-related matter), especially not one suggested by one of those by whom I felt so thoroughly and distressingly 'mobbed'. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There can be no redirects from Article space to User space. Per R2, "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces" will be speedily deleted. Per WP:R#DELETE, a reason to delete a redirect is, "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. " Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, Bgwhite. WP:R2 refers to "Redirects, apart from shortcuts", so after you originally deleted me, I checked Wikipedia:Shortcut, which states:

"Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline."

I found nothing saying it was illegal to create shortcuts to my own home page (for my convenience, and conceivably eventually that of other editors too), so I re-created the redirects as shortcuts. The idea would be to be able to quickly write in Talk Page discussions things like "No, I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say - I've spelt out what I think at Slobus10'. I'll give you a little time to show where it says this is not allowed. If you can't or don't, I intend to recreate the shortcuts. If you can and do, then maybe we need to amend R2 and/or Wikipedia:Shortcut to make this clearer and avoid such future wasted effort by other editors. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now see your quote from the WP:R#DELETE section doesn't mention shortcuts as an exception, but the full version seemingly does ('The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which...', although it is just conceivable that I am confused by its technobabble, especially 'pseudo-namespace'):

1. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)

If that doesn't actually mean shortcuts to User space are allowed, then we seem to need to make that clear, and perhaps to link to it from R2 and Shortcut. What do you think? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the only effect of banning the shortcut is to force me (and conceivably others) to inconveniently have to type User:Tlhslobus#Slobus10 (which I would presumably shorten to something like User:Tlhslobus#10) instead of Slobus10. But I guess there may be technical or administrative reasons why that would be preferable, but, if so, it should be clearly spelled out to avoid hassles such as this one. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not the only effect. Non-notable people love adding wikilinks to their user page inside articles (see [2] [3]). Editors love doing redirects to user space articles that would never be an article on its own merits. Now that there is Draft space, that is also becoming abused in the same manner. Article space is for articles, not for users to publicize their own non-notable creations.

As for making the wording clearer, you will need to take it up on the MOS talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for replying, Bgwhite. But:

1) The examples you show do not involve shortcuts.

2) You still have not shown me any rule banning my shortcut - the rules you have quoted both say shortcuts are allowed - so you at least appear to be currently misusing the power of automatic deletion. You have merely implied that at some future date I might abuse my shortcut by placing it into an article (which, if nothing else, seems to violate WP:AGF), something which I have never done in over 6 years here, and have no intention of doing, and which would presumably be quickly and rightly reverted if I ever did, either by a BOT, or manually if BOTs can't do it (which would somewhat surprise me, but may well be the case); and I would presumably be risking various sanctions if I did abuse it in this way. Of course if I wanted to abuse article space (which I don't), I still could, precisely as done in the two examples which you have shown (as neither involved shortcuts).

3) In any case the way to publicize non-notable views on Wikipedia is presumably just to create a Wikipedia essay, and it's perfectly legal to do so, as I just possibly might try to do in the currently not-particularly-likely event that I ever had the time and inclination to seriously try to publicize anything. But even then that's pretty unlikely, as it would probably make far more sense to create my own off-wiki blog, where I wouldn't have to worry about it being mangled or deleted by Wikipedians who disagreed with it. Indeed down the years I have noticed a significant number of unmolested links from article space to off-Wiki blogs - I've even created a tiny number of such links myself (NOT to any blog of mine) on the rare occasions when that seemed justified to me by WP:IAR, but I suspect it would not be too difficult to abuse the process, and I suspect it happens all the time. Indeed it might even be an interesting experiment to create a few such supposedly "justified" links, just to see how long they lasted (with or without the assistance of partners-in-crime to get round rules like 3RR), though I don't know who one asks for permission to perform such experiments (as I'm not sure that I would want the hassle of performing such experiments, but I definitely wouldn't want to risk getting into trouble by performing them without permission).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4) Meanwhile I look forward to you showing me which rule actually does ban my shortcuts - if nothing else, finding such a rule, if it exists, will greatly facilitate the improvement to MOS which you suggested. If no such rule is forthcoming from you within a reasonable period, I will presumably attempt to recreate my shortcuts.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A shortcut IS a redirect. Per WP:SC, A shortcut is a specialized type of redirect page. Redirects from article space to user space are forbidden. I'm done. You are Wikilawyering. This will go nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, Bgwhite. I am NOT Wikilawyering. You are persistently ignoring the fact, repeatedly pointed out above by me, that both the justifications you have used to delete my shortcuts explicitly state that shortcuts are an exception to the rule that Redirects from article space to other spaces are forbidden. You have not produced a single rule that contradicts this. But given your attitude, I guess I'll just have to seek advice from some admin or whatever. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The problem is, Tlhslobus, I agree with Bgwhite. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Drmies, far from being a problem, that conveniently settles who's right, and saves lots of unnecessary further grief. But does that mean it's OK to amend the rules to say explicitly that shortcuts to User space are not allowed, to prevent similar hassle for others in future, or is that too simple? (By the way, if it is too simple, please feel free to just tell me so, if necessary without giving a reason if that would be awkward) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting--but this is probably not the place to write up such an emendation. If you start that discussion somewhere, please drop me a line; I'm interested in it for various historical reasons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Drmies. I'll let you know if and when I decide to have a go at amending it. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And by the way, Bgwhite, you'll perhaps be glad to know that I accept Drmies's ruling that you are right, and I'm wrong. So sorry about that, though to be fair to myself, it seems to me that the problem was at least possibly mainly down to inadequate/misleading rules. If so, do you, by any chance, have any suggestion on how the rules should be re-worded to prevent similar hassles for others in future? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

to reply to your comment elsewhere, here, or I'd be running the risk of derailing the conversation there. It look like this:

There is absolutely no way that a gender-exclusionary Wikipedia area should be approved, period. That's what this is about. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, on the other hand, is giving us a good demonstration as to why it might be desirable to have such a place. I'll have to remember to add "period" to my list of words that mean "in my opinion." Carptrash (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Carptrash, are you being ironic or charitable or a bit of both? At least in my humble opinion, "In my opinion" usually suggests some degree of humility and awareness of one's own fallibility; "period" usually does not :) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that it is perhaps Carrite who is being ironic by presenting the strident, "here is the final word in the subject" typically male approach to this topic and showing us why it is that females might need a place to get away from that. Is he aware of that or not? I do have a list of words and phrase on my user page that I take to mean "in my opinion" when I use or hear them, and, as it turns out, I am very prone to frequently interjecting ("opinion)" in my writing - and speech for that matter. Deos this help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Einar. I entirely agree with you that Carrite probably shows why women probably need such a group, but I don't think he's being ironic, nor even typically male. I could of course be completely wrong and very unfair on him, but I still think it most likely that he's being arrogant and strident because that's how he is. And that's why his "period" is basically the opposite of a modest "in my opinion" - of course it is just his opinion, but that does not mean he is saying "in my opinion" rather than "this is the self-evident objective truth and anybody who doubts it blasphemes against my even more self-evident infallibility". I think most typical males, whatever they might think in private, know better than to appear so foolish in public - but of course such males are the silent majority, who keep their mouths shut and stay out of this kind of dispute, unlike Carrite. Anyway, it's been good to talk to you. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unspeakably naughty acts. Since you had some involvement with the Unspeakably naughty acts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm at least temporarily semi-retired from Wikipedia, as it's proving too much of a distraction from more important things. I had intended to be fully retired at least until if and when I had completed some of those 'more important things', but so far that has proved too difficult. If I do succeed in completing 'some of those more important things', I plan to eventually return, though I'm not sure when (and I may eventually decide that returning would be a mistake).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't add or restore tabloid sources to this article. Per WP:BLPSOURCES they cannot be used. --John (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have done a fantastic job editing this article. Just a word to say thanks. It is now much more objective and balanced.Ofloinn12 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You have done a fanstastic job on Denis Brien article- It is now much more objective and balanced. Don't know the man and don't even live in Ireland but Wikipedia should be objective! Ofloinn12 (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Ofloinn12, your own work on it has been pretty good too, so I'll be returning the compliment in a minute or two. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tlhslobus. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm temporarily copying the discussion below here for safe-keeping, just to ensure I don't have any trouble finding it when it eventually gets archived. I also intend to copy any future amendments to it. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also adding my contribution to another discussion on the dame say.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) And I've now decided to add the other contributions as well.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I find good arguments showing it is highly unlikely that we are created by nasty naturally-evolved 'gods'?

• Short version: Where can I find good arguments showing it is highly unlikely that we are created by one or more nasty naturally-evolved 'gods' (unlike the non-evolved 'supernatural' 'gods' that are the only ones seriously criticised in Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion?

• Longer Version: Can anybody please either provide me with, or tell me where I can find, good arguments to suggest that it is highly unlikely that we are created by a non-supernatural quasi-deity (or quasi-deities), one(s) who has/have presumably evolved somewhere in some place such as the Multiverse (if the Multiverse exists; or if not, then somewhere else) by some mechanism such as natural selection, who is/are presumably neither all-powerful nor all-knowing nor perfectly good, nor necessarily appropriate for us to worship, etc, and who for some reason has/have created us, quite likely as part of some kind of experiment running in some kind of computer simulation (with both the apparent age and size of our 'universe' thus probably being illusions, which, oversimplifying a little for the sake of brevity, would seemingly make them deceivers, while human suffering, if not also some kind of illusion-cum-apparent-deception, would seemingly make them at best indifferent to our suffering, and at worst make them sadists).

Please note that, unfortunately, in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins seemingly barely touches on this question and concentrates on attacking the notion of a 'supernatural' or 'Skyhook' 'God'.

Further Details:

----------------

• All Richard Dawkins seemingly says in The God Delusion about the kind of non-supernatural quasi-deity that has interested/worried me for many years are such things as:

• chapter 1, page 33 (page numbers are from the 2009 paperback edition, though the version I actually read is an earlier version which may be slightly different) : "The Nobel-Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg ... is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally used it, to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship"

• chapter 1, page 36: "... As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only SUPERNATURAL gods delusional."

• chapter 2, page 98-99: "...Science Fiction authors, such as Daniel F. Galouye in Counterfeit World, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we are in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilisation. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler anticedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution: some sort of cumulatively ratcheting 'crane' as opposed to 'skyhook', to use Daniel Dennett's terminology. Skyhooks - including all gods - are magic spells. ..."

• chapter 4, page 185-6: "...Or maybe the elusive crane that cosmologists seek will be a version of Darwin's idea itself: either Smolin's one or something similar. Or maybe it will be the multiverse plus anthropic principle espoused by Martin Rees and others. It may even be a superhuman designer - but, if so, it will almost certainly NOT be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed. If (which I don't believe for a moment) our universe was designed, and a fortiori if the designer reads out thoughts and hands out omniscient advice, forgiveness and redemption, the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalotor or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another Universe."

• I have already asked this question by e-mailing richarddawkins.net but got no reply, at least so far. I have also asked the question here at Yahoo answers, and received several answers, but none of them have proved satisfactory (as you can see there from the comments I've added in response to each answer).

Tlhslobus (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it's Dawkins who doesn't really exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say that this fairy tale worries you. Why? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, KägeTorä. I don't have time to list all the reasons why it worries me (and it may not be responsible to do so publicly because of some of the crazy things I can see some people doing if they were to know about and take seriously some of the reasons that worry me). But the 'what kind of sadists...?' question I mention below in my reply to Asmrulz will do as a kind of illustration (although it's actually among the lesser of my worries). Of course if somebody can give me logical arguments that convince me it really is a highly improbable 'fairy tale' then I would have no reason to worry. However merely asserting that it is a fairy-tale will not convince somebody like me who has spent many years failing to either find such arguments or work them out myself (and if there were simple and obvious arguments I expect that I'd already have found them in Dawkins's book or elsewhere). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument (well, one of) against a natural (itself evolved by a Darwinian process) creator is the same as that against a supernatural (eternal, outside time and space etc) one - namely, that no creation was needed because the complexity in the world today didn't depend on some improbable, carefully engineered initial microstate, but that it is inherent in the laws of physics themselves (kind of like the simple rules of the Game of Life give rise to complex patterns.) The latter argument is explored e.g. in The Recursive Universe Asmrulz (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Asmrulz, especially for the book name. Can you suggest anymore? However I should perhaps mention that just because something isn't needed (and it seems to me pretty self-evident that no creator is needed) doesn't necessarily make it highly improbable - to mention just one of several reasons why it worries me, it seems to me that every one of the probably infinite number of different kinds of possible Universe-generating Laws of Physics (or 'Cranes' in the language of Dawkins and his philosopher friend Daniel Dennett) that could enable us to evolve could also enable more advanced beings to evolve and create us - indeed I would tend to expect that most models of a Universe/Multiverse should lead to both an infinite number of uncreated 'beings rather like us', and an infinite number of 'beings rather like us' created by the kind of methods I've just mentioned. And if we happen to be among the latter infinity we then have such problems as 'what kind of sadists would put us in a world as full of suffering as this one?'. Should you have arguments and/or book names that specifically answer that sort of problem, I'd much appreciate it. (I could also raise 'Copernican Principle' and other such objections to arguments based on notions like "THE laws of physics" and "THE universe" (or "THE world today", to use your expression) as opposed to "our currently observable sub-universe" and "our current least unreliable but known-to-be-at-least-partly-wrong-and-mutually-incompatible approximations (such as our mutually incompatible theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) to whatever are the true laws of physics that apply at least in this part of our sub-universe at this time", but that can perhaps await another day.) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tlhslobus, I agree, it's a sort of modal and/or plausibility argument. The Recursive Universe I got from the further-reading section in Reality: A Very Short Introduction. The argument was more about super-civilizations simulating (as opposed to creating) one another. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same arguments would work for your scenario, so check out Reality and its bibliography, too. I'm afraid I can't be more helpful than this, I'm one of those who read a lot but retain little and are endlessly fascinated by whatever they read last, as was the case with Poundstone's book :) Asmrulz (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much, Asmrulz - you've been very helpful. One hopefully final supplementary question. You started off by saying "The argument (well, one of)...". Does that mean you know of other arguments that might be useful in this context (of showing that evolved creators are highly unlikely), and that are not already covered in the references you've given me above (and that might not already be covered in the very useful references to the simulated reality debate given below by Ssscienccce and Paulscrawl)? If so, and if it's not too much hassle, a bit more on those lines might be helpful (but if it's too much hassle then please don't bother, as you've already been very helpful). Once again, thanks and regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tlhslobus: no prob. I meant with the phrase that I suspect there might be other arguments, I'm just not aware of them Asmrulz (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, Asmrulz, and thanks again for all your help. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The conventional assumption is that God pre-existed creation. How that would work is anyone's guess, but just trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is a futile exercise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Baseball Bugs. I've no interest in the 'conventional God' (nor in what has been conventionally assumed about the said 'God'). As for existing 'before creation', that's rather easy - you and I are currently existing before the 'observable universes' that we will unwittingly create (and inhabit) next time we dream - and much the same is true of any evolved being that is capable of creating other kinds of virtual universes, such as those discussed in Simulated Reality.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The conventional wisdom is that if God exists He is a mathematician. The answer to the question "Why are the laws of physics as they are?" usually given is that if they weren't we wouldn't be here. But as Fred Hoyle has pointed out, there is a lot more to it than that. The relationships that govern forces and masses are counterintuitive - not what we would expect. Again, if they weren't so there could be no life. Substances generally have greatest specific gravity as solids, but water is the exception. Its peculiar molecular structure means that it has the greatest density at about 37 degrees F. That's why ice forms a protective skin and stops a body of water from freezing solid, with disastrous consequences for life. As Hoyle observes, "It's a put - up job". Again, whatever people say it is impossible for life to come into being naturally - it's just too complicated. It was created once, miraculously. That's why we have no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. There is no scientific explanation for all the miracles recorded in the Bible from turning the water into wine to the Resurrection. Neo - Darwinists talk about the blind watchmaker, but looking at the variety of life forms about and how superbly fit for purpose they are it is obvious there is a guiding purpose behind it all. 80.43.196.11 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, 80.43.196.11. But as most unbelievers would say, there are plenty of possible explanations for such 'anthropic coincidences' that do not require a creator - in one of the above quotes, Dawkins mentions at least two such physical 'cranes' (the ideas of Martin Rees and those of Smolin), basically different variants of a Multiverse. However saying creator(s) are not necessary is not the same as saying they are highly unlikely (indeed almost all variants of a Multiverse seem logically to lead to the evolution of an infinite number of different kinds of creators - indeed in some ways we are some of those creators, in the sense that we unwittingly create (and inhabit) one kind of 'observable universe' every time we dream). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no scientific explanation for the miracles in Harry Potter either, there's no such thing as "too complicated", and every species that didn't "fit together" dies. 24.57.54.196 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those who argue that natural evolution is "impossible" have really no comprehension of how long a million years is, let alone billions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that the universe was created with a false history by a powerful deceiver is called omphalism. For some reason that redirects to "omphalos hypothesis", but it's not a (scientific) hypothesis: it can't be tested because it "predicts" that everything appears as though it were false. The article mostly talks about the god of Genesis, but the problem is the same regardless of the imagined nature of the creator. -- BenRG (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, BenRG. The modern version has nothing to do with Genesis or whether 'Adam' had a belly-button (omphalos in, I think, Greek) or other such fairy tales. It's called Simulated Reality (or 'Simulated Multiverse' when it's listed as one of Brian Greene's 9 types of Multiverse in our Multiverse article). Whether it (or anything else to do with Multiverses and/or the 'Cranes' of Dawkins and Dennett) is a testable scientific hypothesis is of very little interest to me - what I would like is some logical argument to convince me that it is highly improbable (and to say it's not testable by scientists tells me nothing about whether it's improbable or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is humans who invented the creation stories, across all cultures. They're not quite "false" histories, but more like "the best we could do at the time." Which, if you think about it, is the state of science. We don't "know" anything with absolute certainty. The best we can do is to cite available evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't what I meant by false history. I meant fake fossilized cyanobacteria in rocks, fake incoming microwave radiation with subtle inhomogeneities consistent with the predictions of inflationary cosmology, and so on—evidence planted for no possible purpose but to mislead us about the history of the universe. -- BenRG (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard some extremist creationists say that stuff. It's baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Baseball Bugs. But it would be helpful if you could perhaps give us the logic underlying your assertion that it's baloney, preferably also letting people like Nick Bostrom know why his ideas about Simulated Reality are logically baloney, and also letting leading atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (the antithesis of creationists, let alone 'extreme creationists') know, so that the next edition of 'The God Delusion' can be improved with these useful logical insights that they mysteriously failed to notice up to now, thereby helping to create the current discussion. After all the whole point of this entire discussion is to try to show logically and convincingly that it is baloney, rather than merely asserting that it is. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, let's put it this way: If God deceives, then nothing we can observe can be trusted. However, if there is consistency in the observations, then we might suppose that, at worst, God is deceiving with consistency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Baseball Bugs. I won't use the term 'God' - it carries too much confusing emotional baggage. If, perhaps as part of some experiment (or game, or whatever), our hypothetical creator(s) want(s) us at least sufficiently deceived to be uncertain whether we are created or not, then he/she/it/they presumably will make the deception sufficiently consistent to maintain our uncertainty. That's an argument for a deception being reasonably consistent, not for deception hypotheses being baloney. If the deception is reasonably consistent, then our pseudo-reality can probably be trusted in the short to medium term for most ordinary everyday purposes (and in any case in practice we probably have little choice except to work on that assumption most of the time, whether it's correct or not, and I don't want to go into possible exceptions - I mentioned in an earlier reply to somebody else that this might not be responsible - and it would also be very long to write). But as it happens others are coming up with good references for me to research - so thanks again for your time and efforts. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some say that we may be living in a simulated reality. Bostrom even claims that, unless we're unlikely to reach a technology level in which we can create such simulations or if a comparable civilisation would likely not create a large number of such simulations, then we are probably living in one.

That would fit your description, created by naturally-evolved gods. Ssscienccce (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Ssscienccce. Another way of putting my question is 'Can anybody give me or point me to arguments that might convince me that it's almost certain that Nick Bostrom, among others, is wrong, (or, in other words, highly unlikely that he's right)?' Tlhslobus (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An answerable Reference Desk question! You might try Are You a Sim? by Brian Weatherson. The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 53, No. 212. (Jul., 2003), pp. 425-431. Register and read for free (not sure if PQ participates), or ask for on the Resource Exchange. Abstract:

Nick Bostrom argues that if we accept some plausible assumptions about how the future will unfold, we should believe we are probably not humans. The argument appeals crucially to an indifference principle whose content is unclear. I set out four possible interpretations of the principle, none of which can be used to support Bostrom's argument. On the first two interpretations the principle is false; on the third it does not entail the conclusion; and on the fourth it only entails the conclusion given an auxiliay hypothesis which we have no reason to believe." -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. You'll also want Bostom's The Simulation Argument: Reply to Weatherson. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 218 (Jan., 2005), pp. 90-97. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weatherson's argument is on Bostrom's site, no need to register: http://www.simulation-argument.com/weatherson.pdf

Not that it's helpful, tried for half an hour to understand his second interpretation, with all the philosophical jargon and use of "philosologic". Should have spotted the problem straight away: " ∀Φ: Cr(Φ | fΦ = x) = x Bostrom doesn't formulate this more general principle, but it is clear he intends something like it in his argument". dead giveaway when a philosopher writes that... Ssscienccce (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other critiques of Bostrom's 2003 article, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?, abound. PhilPapers has a short curated list; and Google Scholar says it is cited by 361. Now do your reading, sim! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much, Ssscienccce and Paulscrawl - you've both been very helpful. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference between the Bible and Harry Potter is that the Bible (by and large) recounts fact and Harry Potter is a work of fiction. Has Baseball Bugs ever been inside a church? For the believer, God exists for everyone. Jesus Christ is the redemptor of all mankind. From what I know of Aquinas, much of his work is an explanation that God exists outside space and time. No doubt at some point he states that God created space and time. Using Occam's razor, his views are far more plausible than those of people who speculate on multiverses, multiple deities of various hues and other such nonsense. 80.43.217.22 (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, 80.43.217.22, and my apologies (to you and to the others involved in this part of the debate), as I should perhaps have saved you all some time and effort by making it clear that my question is not looking for arguments that an evolved creator is highly unlikely on the grounds that the traditional un-evolved creator is supposedly for more likely due to such arguments as those of Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo or Occam's Razor. I'm broadly satisfied that the traditional un-evolved creator is pretty unlikely (though perhaps not quite as unlikely as Dawkins and Dennett think, but I won't go into that), but that, even if I'm wrong on that, I would expect such an un-evolved creator to be just as worrying as an evolved one, for much the same reasons as I find an evolved one worrying. So sorry if my failure to make that clear caused you to waste your time. Thanks for your efforts, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the Bible (by and large) recounts fact" ^{[citation needed]}! Large parts of the Bible are not even purported to be factual - see e.g. the Song of Solomon. And even those parts that form a more-or-less coherent narrative are, at best, "inspired by real events". Historical science provides a very different picture than the Biblical narrative. No world-wide flood, no Egyptian exile, no sun standing still over Jericho. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how Thomas Aquinas crept into this. Catholic theology was laid down by St Augustine, who was a prolific writer, and I believe this subject was discussed in his major work "The City of God". That is, St Augustine of Hippo, there may be others. 78.145.22.185 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there's Saint Augustine of Canterbury for one. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that archaeologists had recently excavated the remains of the Ark on Mount Ararat. The flood legend is common to many ancient religions - they can't all be wrong. When the wind blows in a certain way it does heap up the waters of the Red Sea just as described in the account of the escape from Egypt, and artefacts have been found on the seabed. How can historical science prove the Israelites were never held captive in Egypt? It's no less plausible than the captivity in Babylon, which is well documented. 80.43.224.191 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how and where did life start? you are not answering the question by UFOing the question. you are just moving the question to another realm. life started here will end here after many heated arguments and waste of resources and lives. Right now we are in the middle of "WINNING". the last time we were deceived we were deceived mathematically. celebrating the start of the 3rd millennium worldwide on 1-1-2000 by the entire world , around the world fireworks on TV, the Pope asking us to come to Rome to celebrate on 12-31-1999 and warning us not to come the next year-the correct year for the new millennium-they all came together for the PERFECT STORM of deception in math where there is only one right answer. This was and is a miracle that was thought out before it came to be. This is possible because this is all a dream that will play out and be revealed to the doubter upon what we call death. When many coincidences happen throughout your life experience you grow knowing you "see" differently than those around you because of the hints along THE WAY. They are here for all to see for all to understand for all to come together. This is so simple few will understand.166.177.251.76 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems incredibly OT, but see Flood myth, which includes a section called "Claims of historicity", and Searches for Noah's Ark; perhaps also Outburst flood and Noah's Ark. There may have been some localised flooding in some areas. There was definitely no worldwide flood which required "two of every living thing, and seven pairs of every clean creature" on an ark. And no, no concrete evidence of such an ark has ever been found and whichever version you follow [4], there's a good chance someone in the time of the ark had no chance of building one presuming it would have even floated. Sure people find Noah's ark all the time. They are also always finding new ways to get net energy out of plain water and ways to perform cold fusion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Can god create" question

Can a omnipotent (All can do) god create a chair which is made only from Iron but also only from Copper? Thanks. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reference that can answer this question authoritatively. Anyone who claims to have the answer would just be speculating. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a god that could do that. His name is Erwin. Widneymanor (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That "thought experiment" is hopelessly flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec) See Omnipotence and the Law of non-contradiction. People who argue for or theorize about an omnipotent deity typically exclude the logically impossible from the definition of "omnipotent", i.e. even an omnipotent god cannot do what is logically impossible, which is what you're asking about.

If omnipotence were to include the ability to do the logically impossible, for example to create something that is exclusively made of iron, but also of copper, then the very notion of "omnipotence" itself is logically absurd, at least in conventional formal logic. The concept could perhaps be considered according to dialetheism, which rejects the Law of non-contradiction. - Lindert (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could define what the molecular structure of such an object would be, that would be a start in the right direction. Although the question "Can He create a chair?" by itself would also be a good place to start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The problem is not a limitation on God, but that the question itself is incoherent, regardless of the posited agent. What is a chair that is all copper and all iron at the same time? The fact that humans can string noises together and tolerate cognitive dissonance doesn't mean that a string of words in any way applies to reality. For example, anyone who actually knows what copper and iron are is going to have to also accept that 26=29. If you accept that 26=29, then per ex falso quodlibet, you'll also have to accept that God does not exist. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here's how 26 can equal 29: By the entire universe being compressed into a single point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, if he can make a chair that is entirely copper and entirely iron, then he can simultaneously exist and not exist, and the him that exists is simultaneously both omnipotent and limited. But I speculate. I'm applying logic to a being to whom logic does not apply; anyone who can always have existed and will always exist, and who created the universe and is therefore separate from the universe but is also omnipresent throughout it, would have no difficulty with perpetual motion, which we consider impossible. So, we don't get to decide what God can and cannot do; the opposite is more likely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God already both exists and does not exist. If you're a believer, He exists for you. If you're non-believer, then He does not exist for you. And since His absolute existence or not is unprovable, whether God exists for you is the closest you can come to the absolute truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think perpetual motion is particularly on-point here. Perpetual motion may be physically impossible, but it's not logically impossible. Most philosophers consider the two things distinct, though I suppose the distinction has been challenged (all philosophical distinctions get challenged).

There are respected theological currents that consider God omnipotent but hold that that does not imply that God can do the logically impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really want to get into it, the two relevant philosophers are Aquinas, who holds that God is logical, and Al Ghazali, who holds that logic does not limit God, and that God does not do what is good because it is good, but that what is good is good because God demands it. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your second link points to a disambig page. I suppose you mean Al-Ghazali? --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I was not aware they used hyphens in Arabic, but I did read Al Ghazali quite a few years back. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your transliteration, just giving a link that works given the current state of Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find nearly all of these answers profoundly unsatisfying. Where did the laws of logic and mathematics come from? It seems to me that the existence of things such as six specific perfect shapes (I mean Platonic solids - isn't that a valid term for them?) in four dimensions (if one accepts that) are the proof of the objective existence of some higher plan and order to Creation, which are not inferred from the world we see around us, and not susceptible to any possible change by any human or even advanced alien agency. A defining attribute, perhaps the most defining attribute, of God would be the ability to create such laws, which implies the ability to change them. I don't pretend this is an answer, but only a comment that I think the question still is not answered here. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are only five Platonic solids. I suppose you're counting the spherical ball as your sixth? (Note that the sphere is not a solid at all, but a two-dimensional surface.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]

@Trovatore: Nay, I said in four dimensions - like if you put four dodecahedrons at the vertices of a tetrahedron, then bend in the 4th dimension until they come into contact. When I was young I worked them out on my own, without ever having seen another source on them, and so I use them as my example of something that exists solely as an idea, but has an objective reality that can be discovered independently by other people (this seems like an obvious thing to me, but just try arguing it with a Marxist!)

If logic and mathematics had to "come from" somewhere then why not God himself? --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see where the reference to Thomas Aquinas comes from. Mathematicians can solve problems by supposing up to ten dimensions. Although we can't see the majority of them, they follow the rules of dimensionality. Proof that not only does God exist, He is a mathematician. Many apparently impossible concepts may not be - cf Schrodinger's cat. As has been pointed out, a professor of philosophy is just a very slow - moving waveform. 78.145.22.185 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If theologians can consider something that is simultaneously all human and all divine, why not all copper and all iron: :) - Nunh-huh 06:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But does this all-iron and all-copper chair have one nature, or two simultaneously? We could have created a whole new heresy! Iapetus (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brass is a monophysite alloy - the old twelve - sided threepenny bits were all - copper and all - tin. These dodecagonal (one for each disciple) heresies are going to be resurrected as the new pound coin. 80.43.224.191 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The boring answer to "Where do the laws of maths come from?" is that they are derived from a set of "axioms" - basic rules which seem to be obviously true, but which you can't really prove or disprove (for example "There is an infinite number of numbers" or "You can draw a straight line between two points"). Axioms are still human inventions, but what counts is whether or not they seem to accurately represent the universe (for a long time, we thought parallel lines never cross, until it turned out that space was curved, and a different mathematical system had to be used by physicists, and mathematicians still argue whether it's possible to choose from between an infinite number of identical choices). You might ask where the axioms come from, but the answer is probably "They just are" in most cases – there's no reason for there to be an infinite number of numbers, except that there's also no reason why there shouldn't be. Smurrayinchester 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is more or less the standard formalist line. I too once thought as you do.

Now I find formalism extremely lacking as either a description of mathematical practice or as an explanation for its successes.

The formalist considers the axioms to be primary and the objects the axioms describe to be unimportant. But (especially in set theory) this is just not so. The intuitive picture of the objects described by set theory is simple and clear (the so-called von Neumann hierarchy). The literal set of accepted axioms, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, is complicated to the point of being Baroque, and not even close to a canonical set of axioms corresponding to the picture (arguments can be made for both weaker and stronger systems, though the arguments for the stronger ones are ultimately more convincing).

The reasons for the axioms really don't have much to do with physics, certainly not in set theory, but really not even much in geometry. I have been told (I have not really studied them) that the Euclideans were explicitly talking about an ideal realm of geometry, and not about the physical world. However, being foundationalists, they hoped to reduce geometry to a simple set of axioms, and thought they should be able to prove the parallel postulate from their other axioms, though it's not entirely clear to me why they thought that was likely. As it turned out, they were wrong about that; the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other axioms. But it is nevertheless true, in the sense that it holds in their motivating picture, which we now recognize as corresponding to manifolds of zero curvature.

Somewhat similarly, the axiom of choice is obviously true, in spite of not being provable from the other ZF axioms. If you give assent to the motivating picture of set theory, it is very difficult to avoid giving assent to the axiom of choice, notwithstanding its formal independence from the axioms of ZF. --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smurrayinchester: The idea that the laws of math "just are" puts them in the position of the first cause or unmoved mover. My impression is that monotheists generally believe God is in that position; he is not just someone playing some crappy free game on the Web who can place an archery range or a tower but not a bordello or a concentration camp; he is a superuser, a programmer, not the captive of the parameters laid out for him by some impersonal and unaccountable "just is". Atheism need not make that placement, but it is a puzzle that it imagines that rules of thought are the prime mover, yet the prime mover is incapable of thought! Wnt (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Omnipotence paradox is a related article.--88.2.8.193 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Can a omnipotent (All can do) god create a chair which is made only from Iron but also only from Copper?". One issue here is what, if anything, is meant by words like "omnipotent" (see for instance Omnipotence paradox, and thanks for the link, 88.2.8.193) and "god" (see, for instance, Ignosticism).

But much of the discussion here seems to take it for granted that it is logically impossible for a chair to be made only of copper and also only of iron. Much of the discussion also seems to assume things like that god cannot both exist and not exist. And so on. But one editor above has already shown one way in which 'God' (arguably) does and does not exist (he exists for believers and not for unbelievers). There are arguably plenty of others. For instance if our universe is the result of chance and/or logic, then arguably chance and/or logic is then the creator of the universe, and is thus arguably 'god', and arguably chance and logic are things that do and don't exist, meaning that they exist in some senses, and don't exist in other senses (chance arguably exists, but not in the same way that my chair exists), much like an awful lot of other things. For instance we all know that Santa Claus doesn't exist, yet we can find a Santa Claus in most major stores at Christmastime - similarly all Walt Disney's non-existant creatures such as Mickey Mouse exist in Disneyland, a person you meet in a dream doesn't exist yet he or she may actually be your best friend when you wake up, and even if the dreamperson has no counterpart in the awake world, he or she arguably still has a kind of existence while you are dreaming (and he or she can arguably also have an existence of sorts afterwards in your memory). And so on ad infinitum.

Carl Sagan (in Broca's Brain, if I remember right) once wrote that Thomas Aquinas had said that God couldn't create a triangle whose internal angles didn't add up to 180 degrees, before claiming that he (Sagan) could easily perform this task, adding "(on a curved surface)"; a Thomist (a supporter of Thomas Aquinas) would probably reply that Sagan had cheated by moving the goalposts and/or that a triangle has straight sides by definition and that Sagan's alleged triangle has curved sides and is thus not a triangle. So who's right? How would I know, as how would I know who decides what counts as a 'true' triangle? That assumes that expressions like 'true triangle', 'true god', 'true Santa', 'true reality', 'true existence', etc, have some kind of 'objective meaning', an assumption which is far from self-evident.

Fuzzy Logic is one set of ideas intended to address this sort of issue (as also are such ideas as the already mentioned Ignosticism). The chair I'm sitting on is solid to me, but to a neutrino it's almost entirely empty space, so it arguably isn't solid to a neutrino. Glass is solid to me but a photon (a 'particle' of light) has no difficulty going through it, so glass arguably isn't solid for a photon. Music may be loud to me and silent to a deaf person. And so on. It seems perfectly possible to create a chair that seems distinguishable from iron but indistinguishable from copper to some kinds of being and that seems indistinguishable from iron but distinguishable from copper to some other kinds of being, and I've no reason to suppose that an 'omnipotent god' is needed to do this. In which case it seems arguably true (especially to devotees of things like Fuzzy Logic) that the chair is made only of copper for some and only of iron for others - whether that Fuzzy Logic argument is 'correct' may well be as difficult (and perhaps impossible) to decide 'objectively' as the similar argument about whether Sagan or the Thomist is 'objectively correct' about Aquinas's triangle.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

−

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you actually read the section to which you linked. TIES only applies to topics from a specific English-speaking country. Since German ships are necessarily from Germany, they do not have a strong tie to an English-speaking country. The argument that Ship A only ever fought against English Speaking Country B, so the article on A should use B's variant was shot down a very long time ago. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I not merely read the section, I explicitly quoted it in the edit description, and now in Talk. I had already replied to this in the Talk Page. The relevant rule does NOT say "From" a particular English-speaking country, it says "with a strong link to a particular English-speaking country." And one of the examples it gives is Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English) - I should point out that the institutions of the European Union are NOT 'from' Britain, and they are NOT 'from' Ireland. I have already explained the strong link of this warship to Britain and to Britain's history. On the other hand there is no link whatever to US English and no reason at all why US English should be used in this article, in a way that is likely to unnecessarily annoy British readers.

So perhaps you could give us a link to where 'this argument was shot down a long time ago'. It would not surprise me if it was - Wikipedia can usually be relied upon to produce questionable and arguably perverse decisions like that, which are contrary to the plain meaning of its own rules and can be relied upon to annoy and waste the time of yet more editors into quitting Wikipedia, as well as unnecessarily irritating its readers. But even supposing the decision was taken by some properly constituted consensus, I still see no reason why US English is to be preferred to British English in this particular case. Meanwhile I'm copying both your comment and my reply to the article's Talk Page where it belongs, while I ponder whether or not to restore what still seems to me to be the more sensible spelling in this context. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For quickly and skillfully improving the empowering Wikipedia Essay, Zeroth law of Wikipedia   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much,   - Mark D Worthen PsyD, that was very kind of you, and, given that my edits were made way back in 2015, it comes as a most unexpected but very pleasant and much appreciated surprise. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks (again) for your reply on Gerry Adams. I'm sorry for my misconception of Northern Ireland as Ulster. That idea came into my mind after having watched some British Police Detective drama on TV, a long time ago now. Perhaps it was Between the Lines, but am not certain. In the plot, someone at the Belfast Police explained to a colleague from Britain "this is Ulster" (meaning "different rules applies", if I remember correctly). But I still shouldn't have made that assumption, as I have seen maps and tables on Ireland (as the island), that Ulster is a larger area. As I know such matters may be problematic, I ought to have known better, and I'm sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, Boeing720, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for (and my apologies for not saying so at the time of my reply, something which I will soon add to the article's Talk Page for the benefit of any other people who may find themselves in your situation). It was perfectly reasonable for you to call it 'the Ulster conflict', especially as Ulster is often used as shorthand for Northern Ireland, especially by 'Ulster Unionists', 'Ulster Loyalists', etc. But in any case you are a Swede who almost certainly knows far more about Northern Ireland than most people in Northern Ireland or the Republic or Great Britain know about Sweden. And the British-Irish relationship is a terrible minefield for Geographical naming disputes, often not helped by the (sometimes unwitting and sometimes witting) unreasonableness of many participants in such disputes. And incidentally, even if you had said 'Northern Ireland' instead of Ulster you might still have been criticized by those who don't like the expression Northern Ireland (for instance, see here, and also Alternative_names_for_Northern_Ireland#Nationalist_associated_names). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I would like to add, when I was in that age, that I began to watch news on TV, (around 1972-73 I guess), I remember Northern Ireland as one of the larger subjects. I didn't really understood what it was all about then though. Today, from my horizon and in my opinion, few other matters within "the modern" and "the civilised" world, are more sad than the conflict in Northern Ireland. Boeing720 (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Fortunately almost all the killing stopped about 20 years ago, and hopefully it won't start up again in the near future. As for the longer-term future, who can know? For a start, I'm not too sure that humankind has a long-term future. And I'm not sure that anybody can really understand what it was really all about. I note you said on the article Talk page that it was about nationality, not religion, and you may well be right. But even supposing you are right, that doesn't really explain why this particular national conflict turned violent when it did and for as long as it did, and if we don't understand that I suspect we don't really understand what it was really about. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tlhslobus,

Thought it made sense to move the discussion here. FWIW I've seen good faith noms snow closed in a matter of hours once a handful of "regulars" had given the nom a thumbs down. Rather than set some "minimum" time, my preference is to just leave it open. These things go stale pretty quick (usually). I've also been around ITN a long time, and I understand how hard it can be to walk away from a discussion, I just don't think that justifies shutting it down. Totally willing to agree to disagree on this one. I've been (perhaps pointlessly) banging this drum for a while:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_56#No_more_snow_closes_please
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_55#Trump
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_63#George_Papadopoulos

Not trying to "win", just wanted to explain where I'm coming from. Have a good evening! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, CosmicAdventure. It's good to hear your point of view, and you may well be right that snow closes are a bad idea. My point was not that they were a good idea, but that it just doesn't seem true to say that it costs nothing to keep seemingly hopeless things open. But you may well be entirely right that the costs are outweighed by the benefits, though I'm unsure of that, especially if a seemingly hopeless nom has seemingly been 'dead' for more than a day or two (partly hence my originally question of how long this one should be kept open - as it turned out my question may well actually have prevented a snow close if it actually prompted your intervention).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the above, I was thinking of my most recent Snow Close here, which I felt was a good idea, etc ... Tlhslobus (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops - the [Closed] in the section name of the originally intended diff-address above means that it doesn't end up exactly where intended - the intention was to end up at the relevant section ([Closed]_2017_Davis_Cup). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tlhslobus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done We hope (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, We hope, though I guess that I'll now have to add a couple of CNs for Hamill and Clark, as they're seemingly not mentioned in the current source. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK-I went fishing and got them. ;) We hope (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, We hope, excellent work. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I guess I learn something new every day."

Thank you for articles on persons such as James S. Sutterlin, for improving articles such as Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and essays such as Be bold, and ITN including Santa, for thoughtful barnstars and for caring for what "really improves Wikipedia" even if rules don't agree, - Frank, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Gerda, that was very kind of you. I'm not sure that I deserve all your compliments, but even if I don't, underserved praise is a lot more enjoyable than undeserved criticism so thanks anyway . Tlhslobus (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postscript: Sorry, I've restored the 2 out-of-date 'Arbcom elections are now open' sections above which you deleted. I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful, but it's always possible that some day I may want this info in relation to my voting eligibility history, and/or Wikipedia's voter notification systems, or whatever. I restored them manually to try to avoid sending you a possibly distressing 'You have been reverted' notification, as you haven't done anything to deserve any such distress. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, you are so considerate. I am quite used to being reverted, next time you can keep it simple. I have some dangerous thoughts about arbitration, written in 2015 but not much changed. I dislike the "now" in their 2015 and 2016 messages, but at least achieved that 2017 came without "now" ;) - small steps. - Reverts don't cause me distress, but missing people (one because the arbs sent him in the desert - pictured on my talk). - Nice to meet you, - a positive side effect of being called to AfD! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1881 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a contributor to Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noticed your stance on ITN about how limos are cars, not buses. While you're generally right, exceptions happen. "In New York State, a limo with 15 or more seats available, excluding the driver, falls under the definition of a bus and requires a Passenger endorsement ‘P’." InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting and useful info. Actually I thought my point was that limos are cars and buses aren't, and I don't recall saying limos aren't busses, tho I suppose a logician who didn't believe in Fuzzy Logic might claim that I had logically implied this. Anyway as far as I'm concerned, in plain English a limo is still a car regardless of how some bureaucracy may choose to redefine it. This seems rather like that, at least as far as I'm concerned, in plain English spiders and other such creepy-crawlies are all insects even if experts tell me an insect has to have six legs. And there are plenty of other such examples, such as many scientists too arrogant or lazy to sensibly coin an uncontroversial new term instead in recent tears just redefining apes so that humans are now apes, thus now forcing people like me to the inconvenience of having to say non-human apes, etc. But as regards the limos it's all a bit academic now that the nom has been closed. But thanks again and kind regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depending how you read it, it's all the same. "Limos are cars, not buses" or "Limos are cars, not buses". But yeah, by my logic, if all limos are cars and all buses aren't, the limos that are buses aren't cars. It's not purely bureacratic or theoretical horseshit, either. A stretched towncar resembles a classic limo and an elongated station wagon is hearse-like, but crank out a boxy SUV and it looks like a shuttle bus. We don't see insects with spider eyes and pinched abdomens, spinning spiderwebs, like we don't see daddy-long-legs doing it, and I can't imagine a situation where you'd need to make a generalization about apes excepting humans that doesn't ring true for apes including humans, so just say "ape" and you'll be fine. Unless you're the sort of person who hosts mixed parties or runs segregated schools for tailless primates, and don't want orangutan lips near our cheese dip or silverback genitalia swaying in our restrooms. That's totally understandable, and you have my utmost sympathies. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I fully understand everything you're saying, and I suspect life, the universe, and everything, will somehow manage just fine whether I do or not . But as I sort-of-implied, I think we have Fuzzy Logic for precisely that sort of "is this limo a car or a bus?" situation. As for creepy-crawlies, that definition comes from I-forget-which dictionary. The non-human-apes verbal problem is liable to arise in any discussion to do with apes' rights, and perhaps also animal rights, meat-eating v vegetarianism/veganism (and thus health, climate change, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", etc), speciesism, robot rights, AI rights, psychology, identity politics, who decides whether we should say things like Beijing instead of Peking, political correctness, political incorrectness and related phenomena like Brexit and Trump, various kinds of elitism, scientism, creationism (and thus religion and irreligion, which is roughly where this debate actually started), movies (and TV series, books, etc) that touch on such subjects, other stuff that I haven't thought of, and so on. But I feel this discussion is in danger of getting a bit unproductive, so I think I'll now try to leave you have the last word on the subject if you want to do so. Kind regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That word is "mum", ergo mum's the word. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

On 22 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Zheng Xiaosong, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Zanhe (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Irish presidential election, 2018, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tlhslobus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like you. -— Isarra ༆ 08:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, does that mean I'm now going to be in trouble with the Supreme Cabal? Tlhslobus (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no cabal. -— Isarra ༆ 09:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, that's what cabal members say, so I must be in even bigger trouble than I thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what they want you to think. -— Isarra ༆ 02:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So non-existent members of a non-existent cabal want me to think there is a cabal because if they existed, which they don't, they'd say there wasn't one to make me think there was one? I guess that makes as much sense as the rest of Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly! -— Isarra ༆ 20:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...for your thank you. I was hanging out on your userpage because it is so fascinating. I don't ever recall being thanked for anything I have ever contributed to ANI. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Barbara , glad you found my user page interesting (any bits in particular?). I suspect we don't thank each other enough in Wikipedia, possibly a hangover from when Thank You used to give a red notification, making it a possible unwelcome source of stress to people who would expect some bad news like a revert. I asked for a change a few years ago, and I assumed it had been forgotten about, but eventually Thank Yous started appearing in blue, so I like using them quite a lot as a result. On this occasion I handed out quite a few - it probably helped that I was delighted to see people standing up to one particular user (who should perhaps best stay nameless or I just might end up at ANI myself ). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a very unskilled contributor to ANI, I just learned a lot from your above response. I always poke fun at ANI in my humour articles for the Signpost Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, Barbara , I hope you don't try to learn anything from me about how to behave at ANI - I normally never go near the place, so if you know enough about it to make fun of it, you almost certainly know far more about it than I do - and hopefully long may I remain in such blissful ignorance. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meanwhile please, if it's not too much hassle, do you by any chance have any links to some of your funniest Signpost articles? My own possibly unwise attempts at humour have recently mostly been here, tho I do make the occasional dubious minor amendments at places like WP:REICHSTAG and WP:WWJD, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia's First Commandment. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia's First Commandment redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eolas (magazine), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I object

• 1) I feel as a presumably unintentional but nonetheless unwarranted and rather offensive attack on my integrity as an editor of over 10 years' standing, the above assertion that the page I produced (probably almost perfectly recreated copy here) was 'unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company ...'.
  • 1b) I also feel much the same about the reason for deletion ('Unambiguous advertising or promotion') given here.
• 2) If eolas magazine wanted to advertise itself on Wikipedia, it likely would have done so long ago, and in a manner sufficiently competent to have ensured it was not speedily deleted.
• 3) Although I obviously can't actually prove this, I expect the reason why it didn't is because it probably shuns publicity (and is thus presumably delighted at our speedy deletion, but we are here to serve our readers, not to serve eolas), as it at least appears to be a well-funded elite-oriented magazine that promotes presumably mostly elite-oriented policies which then probably impact on ordinary Irish people like me and most other Irish readers of Wikipedia, and it can presumably do this far more easily and effectively if we are unaware of its existence, as I was until sometime during the 11 minutes between these two edits (here and here) to the Mary Regan article early yesterday morning (an article which I felt obliged to tidy up a little (see here and here) as I had just authorlinked her (here) when reporting the latest Irish Opinion poll (here).
• 4) As I had found that already mentioned useful Mary Regan citation in eolas, I thought it would be useful to create a stub briefly letting our readers know what eolas was to the best of my admittedly limited ability (I prefer to edit existing articles, and hardly ever create new ones, precisely so as to avoid having my articles deleted), tho trusting that other editors will eventually improve on my stub, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, WP:BOLD, etc. I would have been delighted to have added stuff like criticism had I been easily able to find them online, but I was stuck with what I could find, most of which I explicitly qualified as the company describing itself, which enables the reader to easily treat it with appropriate scepticism. Other editors will presumably be able to find stuff like criticism in due course (if such stuff exists). But meanwhile what I did produce at least gives the reader an idea of what eolas claims to be, and of some of the stuff it seems to have done, all of which seems to me to be a service to our readers. And all of this was done within a few hours of discovering the existence of this magazine, and all of it in the early hours of a Sunday morning, which is hardly enough time to get myself bribed to produce incompetent advertising for them (assuming they wanted such advertising, which they almost certainly don't, as already explained above).
• 5) Meanwhile as far as I'm concerned we are doing a disservice to our readers (but probably a useful tho inappropriate service to eolas, as already explained above), by keeping them in ignorance of the existence of this at least apparently well-funded elite-oriented magazine that may nevertheless affect them. In theory I would like to appeal against the speedy deletion, which happened long before I was aware of it, let alone able to challenge it. But I don't know where to appeal, and I'm also not at all sure that I want to go thru the hassle of doing so.
• 6) While the copy mentioned in (1) above is probably an almost perfect recreation, it might conceivably be useful to be given an official copy by the deleting admin.
• 7) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply

Your article consisted almost entirely of quotes from the magazine sourced to the magazine. The admin who nominated it for speedy deletion and I both thought that's pretty much as promotional as you can get. The fact that you don't think they need or want your help to promote themselves is irrelevant. Furthermore, you can't really show notability if you you use their website, it's not WP:RS. Also, although you can use sourced quotations as examples or illustrations, they mustn't make up the bulk of the content as here, or it becomes a copyright violation.

I'm sorry you appear to have taken this personally, I've been editing longer than you, and I still sometimes get things wrong. I believe I made the correct decision, but I'll ping Randykitty (SD nominator) to see if he takes a different view.⋅You already have a sandboxed version that you could work on, although I feel that it really needs rewriting from scratch with independent third-party sources and real facts instead of them talking about themselves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I second everything that Jim has said. I also am very sorry that you appear to have taken this personally, that certainly was not the intention and, as Jim says, we all err from time to time. I guess you can take this to WP:DRV, but I don't think your chances would be very good. --Randykitty (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 0) @Jimfbleak: @Randykitty:
• 1) Thanks for both your helpful replies.
• 2) I have now found independent sources such as LexisNexis and Harvard Law Library that say more or less what eolas says itself (and more), so I plan to get rid of all eolas's own citations. I already had RSs (Department of Public Expenditure and Reform) showing in relation to events hosted/organised by them, and I now have additional such RSs.
• 2b) So I expect to be recreating the article sooner or later, tho I'm not quite sure when. (Regrettably I have tried and failed to find any criticism of them, such as the elitism that I mentioned above, so I fear the article will now be more flattering to them than it originally was, since it will no longer be saying 'this is just what they say about themselves', and it will still have no explicit criticism of them as elitist, etc; but that's just the nature of most WP:RS, I guess). I will probably try to remember to ping you both if and when I do recreate it (unless you request here that I don't ping you).
• 3) As regards me 'taking it personally', I am pleased that you have now indicated that you are not implying that I am guilty of any misconduct.
• 3b) However I should perhaps point out that the wording of our software (etc) does tend to imply this, and may just possibly need to be looked at, both to avoid damaging editor retention, and to avoid the risk of Wikipedia and editors such as yourselves eventually being sued for libel or slander by editors who feel defamed (as I certainly felt before your replies), and who use their real names (I don't, so this is not something I would do, but others might) and can sue in a jurisdiction where the availability of punitive damages makes it worthwhile to sue (I can't, so again this is not something I would do, but others might). Since I don't do deletions this doesn't worry me so I won't be doing any more about it, but you just might perhaps want to think about it for your own protection (as well as that of Wikipedia and of other editors performing the same tasks as you).
• 4) Thanks again, and regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I'm a journalist for Wired UK magazine and I'm writing a piece about the Brexit Wikipedia page. I see that you've been an active contributor to the entry and would love to talk to you about it. Are you up for being interviewed for the piece?

You can find my email on my Twitter page if so.

Thanks, Matt Mrey445 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again,

Just sent you an email. Thanks!

Mrey445 (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sticking this here as I've nowhere else to put it, and I need to be able to refer to it elsewhere (as it's now being used as a precedent to try to justify another removal):

Tho I had earlier asked whether it was time to close (but on the grounds of no reasonable prospect of consensus to remove, with the !votes split 10-10), I think LaserLegs was right to protest about the removal of the Mueller Report from ITN Ongoing yesterday. I was posting my own complaint there, in effect supporting them, and calling for restoration to Ongoing, when I got an edit conflict because another (and involved) editor had just closed the discussion. I decided it probably wasn't worth the hassle of trying to contest both the dubious Removal and the dubious closure. But for the record, and for the above-mentioned separate discussion, this is what I was going to post:

• Restore to ongoing: Seemingly contrary to the justification given by the remover, at the time of removal on Sunday May 5, the main article (let alone the daughter articles) was getting daily updates, and had got updates relating to events on Thursday May 2 and Friday May 3, as well as referring to events due to occur on Monday May 6, tho unsurprisingly there were no new events (but plenty of updates) at the weekend (the numerous updates made over the weekend are here). The consensus had not been shifting significantly, unless 2 !votes at the weekend are deemed to outweigh 10 !votes during the week, including the last 3 !votes before the weekend. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 18 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tlhslobus! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind invitation, Me-123567-Me, but I'm afraid I won't be joining. My editing was (as it often is) just supplying missing uncontroversial factual info for our readers, and should not be taken as indicating my political views. In fact my views on Green issues are far too 'eccentric' (others might say 'far too insane' ) for me to have any wish to even declare them in public, let alone discuss them. So I strongly suspect your Wikiproject will be better off without me, and vice versa. But thanks again anyway. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received your ping and assuming you were unaware; I have retired from Wikipedia. Thank you for your work here. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - I was unaware.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope you'll reconsider, because I think Wikipedia needs more people like you, in spite of, or rather because of, the fact that, mainly because of our fundamentally different outlook on matters related to religion, we have been, and are liable to continue to be, on opposite sides on a number of issues (and indeed there are still 2 or 3 issues I might like to have taken up with you, except that presumably we both probably have better things to do with our time). But this has caused so little grief between us that you probably have no idea which 2 or 3 issues I'm talking about, and this seems to me clear evidence that you are precisely the kind of editor and admin that we badly need to keep. I'm now going to copy this paragraph to your Talk Page, probably along with some additional comments there. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, the above-mentioned copy and additional comments are now at User talk:Ad Orientem#tlhslobus01.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Land speed record, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Goodyear and Firestone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - I removed your 'citation needed' tag from English invasion of Scotland (1650). I'd be happy to discuss specific concerns you have about the article on its talk page, or in the ongoing FAC discussion. Can I suggest that WP:DRIVEBY tagging isn't particularly helpful when there is obviously active work being done on the article - better to voice concerns and discuss. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 12:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record, it is probably not helpful to describe something as DRIVEBY when it seemingly isn't. I quote from WP:DRIVEBY "Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging"". I clearly put a lot of effort into trying to identify the precise nature of the problem in the cn's reason parameter, both for other editors, and more importantly for any interested reader, so it seemingly is NOT Driveby. In my experience this is usually the best way to proceed, otherwise you all too often in practice tend to get the problem unaddressed for years, with other editors and readers either having no idea there is an apparent problem, or no idea what the apparent problem is. That said, this is now water under the bridge, and I don't wish to waste any more time on it. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll add that I'd be open to rewording the sentence if you think that 'marked the end of' isn't appropriate. "...was the last significant battle in..." or similar verbiage might work, for example. The cited source (which I have a hardcopy of) does use the phrase 'marked the end of' however. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Girth Summit, but the end of what? Does it explicitly say 'The War (or Wars) of the Three Kingdoms', or at least make it unmistakably clear that is what is being spoken of (rather than the end of the English Civil War,for which there seems to be broad agreement)? And even if it does say that, there is the problem that our other articles speak of that/those war(s) continuing until 27 April 1653, so either those articles need to be corrected (if they are mistaken, meaning not backed by any RS), or the alternative view needs to be mentioned roughly in proportion to the weight given to it in other RS, both per WP:NPOV and to avoid confusing our readers (including me, incidentally, as I came across the problem as a reader). On the other hand your suggested "...was the last significant battle in..." (assuming it is correct, which seems very likely, particularly with the help of the qualifier 'significant') does seem to be an ideal solution, at least in the short term, as it gets rid of the confusing contradiction between the sentence and our other articles. Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO (and because I am basically raising the problem as a reader rather than as an editor), I would then leave it to more interested editors to worry about what if anything to do about the question of what various RS say about the supposed end of the War(s) of the Three Kingdoms. And for basically the same reasons I have no wish to get further involved in the discussion elsewhere (such as on the Talk Page or the FAC discussion). Consequently, please feel free to make or not make your (excellent, at least in my opinion) suggested change ("...was the last significant battle in...") as you see fit. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, apologies for the 'driveby' accusation. I just mean that contributing to discussion, rather than tagging an article which is currently under discussion at FAC, is more constructive.

The particular part of the source we're referencing there is actually a discussion about what the series of conflicts ought to be called (English Civil War, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, British Civil Wars etc). The point the authors are making is that what started as an English civil war can not be described in those terms by its end, and different terminology should be used for the later stages of the conflicts. They do say however that the thing they are talking about, whatever name you give it, ended at Worcester. There is often disagreement though about when a conflict actually ends - lots of war memorials I have looked give dates of 1914-1919 for the Great War, regardless of what our article about it says.

I agree with you that our coverage of the period in many articles needs a lot of improvement. Lots of them are based on very old sources and don't really reflect modern scholarship. I'm trying to do something about that, but it's a big undertaking. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you proposing Salman Rushdie for the Main page, "about free imagination in battle with thought control". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much, Gerda, and my apologies for the delay in noticing and replying to your post (actually checking the article history now seems to show that your post should be dated 23rd, not 13th - so I guess you must have copied and pasted parts of your post). But, as you can see from the item below (which should presumably refer to ITNC, and not ANI, though I don't know or care what ANI is), I basically got in trouble (perhaps rightly so, or perhaps not) for expressing my Rushdie proposal in a supposedly unacceptable way, and thus ended up with some of my words being redacted as unacceptable, and with no official thanks for a successful proposal (which I expect is probably fairly unusual). But I was unsurprisingly both pretty angry and in a hurry at the time, and I don't currently have either the time or inclination to try to work out whether what I said in anger and haste was nevertheless justified or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't follow, I feel just relief that he was mentioned on the Main page (and still is as I write this). - ANI aka WP:Great Dismal Swamp, or: better avoid. When you see any Wikipedia abbreviation, just put WP: in front of it and search. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again, Gerda, it's nice to have it confirmed that my critic couldn't even be bothered to get the location of my alleged crime correct . Tlhslobus (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your editorializing and comments on ANI here are beyond the par. I would suggest striking them out. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 23 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much, Gerda, much appreciated. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article David Smith (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Thanks, Germany Gerda.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, that should have been Thanks, Gerda, but I'm editing on my smartphone for the first time, and I didn't notice it had changed Gerda to Germany

Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I've now gone back to editing on my PC, where I have been able to cross out Germany; I'm not sure whether I could also have done that on my smartphone or not) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:08, 15 March 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]