User talk:Ebricca

Hello Ebricca, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have a few tips for you:


 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
 * Ask questions on Village pump

Good Luck!

Alexandros 12:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-- Hello, Ebricca. I made a reply concerting mikado article in my talkpage. I am the computer science major too coincidently. Hope you are having fun too! -- Taku 00:14, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! Please consider linking to new game pages from the list of game topics.

Charles Matthews 14:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Game of logic
Game of logic deleted 14 July 2007 (UTC) ..

Yazee listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yazee. Since you had some involvement with the Yazee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yatsee listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yatsee. Since you had some involvement with the Yatsee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

false flag .. ? 2nd
originally posted on 2016_Brussels_bombings talk page .. was erased less rapidly after second posting though didn't last even half a day

I saw it a replied- Well it might have been a rant before .. so ok for the deletion .. but to eradicate it from the log? I'm just saying the possibility of state sponsored terrorism can never be excluded .. and shouldn't .. there are sayings from famous politicians and lawyers that we always tend to underestimate their importance .. For my sense it has again the flavor .. I'm not the only one .. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR7Gek_V7k .. the reason for it being the rapid reporting - claiming to have the facts without investigation - an analyst coming up with answers so rapidly which should take more time .. to get the person there cut the video etc .. feels a bit like the wtc7 report which was sent over the air before the building collapsed .. In previous cases there were rapidly found passports in perfect condition and simultaneous training scenarios which were playing the same events .. I'm just waiting for confirmation that similar events might have occurred here .. and I stand by what I have written .. --Ebricca (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This story is getting traction in the USA. 79.77.214.229 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, they deleted it!79.77.214.229 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is a plot to.79.77.214.229 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Did UKIP or the German Nazis help do it to cause a war with immigrants or the breakup of the EU.79.77.214.229 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

UKIP are fascists and must be stopped! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brussels-explosions-ukip-says-bombings-show-eu-freedom-of-movement-is-a-security-threat-a6945566.html 79.77.214.229 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

well its sad that critical comments tend to be eradicated on WP .. like being another outlet of the mass media .. worse even the comments are constantly rewritten -- i don't know about ukip .. possibly they are realists to a certain degree, though i don't like some of their arguments - they seem to me to be conservative and adoring the crown quite a bit

for me I see the EU as a doomed project, built rather for ruin then prosperity .. but most likely by intention in this way - with the currency, how laws are detached from society and created by the lobby, formation of the police state and intimidation not to leave the ship like Greece might have, in the beginning the blocking of any form of referendum to legitimize participation in the EU of member states etc ..

it might have very well been another gladio b operation .. like so many before, where its now known (sibel edmonds / daniele ganser) .. and that syria starts to be at peace again might not be well received .. --Ebricca (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Gladio Operations must be defeated.79.77.214.236 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about March of Empires
Hello, Ebricca,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether March of Empires should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/March of Empires.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

 Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Papillon S.r.l.


A tag has been placed on Papillon S.r.l. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of PySol for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PySol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/PySol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Free Media  Kid!  04:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of March of Empires for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article March of Empires is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/March of Empires& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Internet social network" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Internet social network and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

made a comment about urine therapy
lets look how long this one can last .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urine_therapy pretty interesting npov it feels like one of the interesting articles where much of the real discussion is hidden in the archives .. the intro phrase "No scientific evidence exists to support any beneficial health claims of urine therapy." seems just plain wrong - written by ideology and pecuniary greed. later down it becomes even more interesting as "untreated" seems the keyword - someone like a ****** company has to extract urea for it to become really beneficial .. jokes aside i tried if for myself today as I had doubts as well - soaked my hand in fresh one for 10 minutes after having strong blue blemishes and my hand significantly improved .. I know that is non scientific - primary source material is never allowed .. the pharisees may rejoice .. Ebricca (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a hand cream with urea. I don't use it often, so it isn't a financial burden. I would feel disgusted to insert my hand in urine. Hint: urine is not sterile, it has germs. I'm not a hygiene freak, and some germs are actually good. But still not willing to do it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bondremixed.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bondremixed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

comment on wp critizism
made a comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#interesting_page lets look if it will be allowed to stay for me the most interesting part is, that this page exists. It is on top of search engine hits, when searching for wikipedia critizism. Thus effectively silencing other voices. The German wikipedia is real cesspit - even the names of the most vocal critics are in the censor / filter list (markus fiedler / wikihausen) - which is telling for my part - I am not sure if this comment will even be allowed to stay. I actually searched for their English equal - as I know it exists but was not yet able to find it/her - the sources in the page feel off. A comment about political bias - the discussion about left and right is imho futile - for me they are in the end opposing sides of the same coin - if one wants to study this, vashiva is a starting point. Ebricca (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Friend, democracy is a great good, but it is not applicable in every field: science is not a democracy (Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream science, being thus undemocratic by definition), doing business is not a democracy (it's called capitalism, which is different from democracy), religions are undemocratic (they don't hold public vote upon their dogmas), etc. E.g. vitalism has no right here to be represented of equal value to organic chemistry, it has lost the game, and we rightly shun it. The scientific debate about vitalism has ended long ago, it's dead, let it rest in peace. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * the interesting part is that most vocal critics are seemingly not allowed on the page - the german wp has the strongest criticism to date and is not included in the front - where markus fiedler / wikihausen would have to be mentioned - my comment being deleted with the notice "not a forum" - thats imho insane as if one writes honestly it has by definition to be a part of the article .. maybe i should double down but am atm not in the mood to do so.
 * about scientism / science(tm) that you mention - I agree the scientific method would not be a democracy - it is the search for truth .. scientism is political but rather in the form of a dictatorship - "my subjective truth is greater than yours and the only one allowed" - the c event or event 201 being the poster boy .. about vitalism - unfortunately or even fortunately the proposed creation of life is not possible in the lab - as far as I know - I mean from non-living to living - meaning you always need a living cell first - so to completely call vitalism bogus is also far fetched Ebricca (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * LOL, man. Vitalism as a scientific theory died long ago. There is no respectable scientific journal which publishes "evidence" for vitalism. Because there is no such evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * no the issue is about creating life - honestly - prove me wrong - you need a living cell - sure biochemistry has its place .. every theory has weird parts - even the globe model where one can see too far :) aka over the horizon photography (israel crete being the longest) Ebricca (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't in the business of proving scientific facts. Neither am I. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * .. :) it was just about your "lol" .. in good humor .. i know wp is a lost case but are you? Ebricca (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Creating life is a red herring, moving the goalposts, and God of the gaps. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i mean you brought it up .. but fair - it feels beyond the argument Ebricca (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia loves mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream history, and mainstream media with a good reputation for fact checking. There are people who hate these, so they obviously hate Wikipedia.
 * What was Markus Fiedler? A Waldorf teacher. What are Waldorf teachers known for? Their hate for mainstream science and especially mainstream medicine. And, of course, Wikipedia is biased. Fiedler himself is very biased, having an obvious axe to grind against the values of WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedias. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i mean he still is alive - he made 2 movies about the state of the german wp .. that he teaches at waldorf shouldn't be the issue - i guess there is a history to it, he certainly studied at a university .. to discredit him by his employer feels to be ad hominem .. mainstream not necessarily means good fact checking, but rather having the bigger gun Ebricca (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... no, I did not talk about his own competence, but about Waldorf teachers in general, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2012/may/13/letters-steiner-maharishi-schools-wrong (one of many WP:RS which could be WP:CITED to that effect). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * imho that is a bit of a strawman .. Ebricca (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you insist: he posited that on Wikipedia creationism should be equal (equally valid) to evolution, which for a biology graduate is a token he really hates mainstream science. And he attributed the response to a conspiracy, rather than to his own poor grasp of science. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can you give me the source? thanks .. i do know that darwinian evolution has its weird edge cases - like the globe model but this might also become a red herring .. maybe he was criticizing that fact but i really would like to see the source. Ebricca (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is psiram. I cannot link to it, since it is blocked. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * hmm ok .. psiram is not the greatest source .. i tried to follow their source - a yt video (youtu.be/4X-3-AwqkLQ) .. which is not available .. at least this seems to be a strawman from psiram ..
 * (btw i think fiedler and pohlmann have the longest psiram articles :) .. Ebricca (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, my take is rather simple: you have the legal right to hold fringe and pseudoscientific opinions. And Wikipedia has the legal right to shun such opinions.
 * I don't like the articles abortion and health effects of salt, but there are so many more articles wherein my edits are welcome. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * in a way I am often not so sure if they are so fringe .. no for real .. there is just a science(tm) dictum almost everybody knows and does not want to risk their career for .. outliers / unexplained edge cases by themselves would warrant by definition to topple or at least question theories - wp just often feels like painting a "white washed" convenient plain one opinion picture - and I often question qui bono .. I guess I am a bit too old - in the beginnings of wp alternative views were included - or at least the notion that something is unclear Ebricca (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary theory is moving (evolving). But it's not moving towards creationism.
 * And even if the theory of evolution would be proven false, it would be replaced by another naturalistic theory. Not with creationism. Not with intelligent design. There are certain facts, which even if they are true, cannot be investigated through science.
 * Darwin won the battle against Lamarck. That sealed the victory of the theory of evolution. He did not compete against creationism, creationism was not even on the table, same as Usain Bolt never competed in the Special Olympics. Even in Darwin's time, scientists understood that GODDIDIT is not much of a scientific explanation, it's just a lousy excuse for remaining ignorant.
 * It would be nice to know that there is a God. Unfortunately, science cannot answer such questions. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For me the psiram allegations about Fiedler applauding creationism still seem like a strawman - strong sources are just not there. He most likely compared the potential accuracy, if it became politically relevant - and someone intentionally misunderstood.
 * Just to respond to (Neo-)Darwinism - but that has nothing to do with Fiedler - my impression is that it feels like a form of religion - the stairstep theory for example. Macroevolution is just a theory - microevolution could be seen as adoption to environment, not real creation of something new. Mendel experiments with radiating drosophila could be seen as degeneration but not evolution. I am just not so sure if the "by accident" and "selection" is capable of creating things like eyes etc. something feels off - but as said, it is IMHO professional suicide to utter this publicly so most won't dare. Also if you look at the human genome something is very "off" - it is too brittle - giving rise to many aberrations (above baseline miscarriages etc.) as if someone was making genetic experiments .. what I am saying - in a way I am just quite unsure what still can be trusted - much feels too "white washed" - "move along, nothing to see" Ebricca (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

another page - going down the rabbit hole
about the homeopathy page .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#page_npov comment text this page has been rewritten curtesy by the "guerilla sceptics" -- they even stupidly brag about it in recruiting events .. source rob heatherly (a list of the 1000+ rewritten wp pages would be nice) Ebricca (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) referenced source would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq-GuSs8kX8 .. i didnt bother to add a yt link as original content is shunned ..


 * Not a closely guarded secret... Lunatic charlatans was published ten years ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * in a way the question who is the chalatan? IMHO the scientism sceptics should be called that - but am unsure if I understood correctly Ebricca (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The answer is obvious if you establish which side did Wales defend and which side did he condemn. The situation is asymmetrical. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * hmm thanks .. I should have looked closer - so it feels like jimmy has a god complex or it is a kowtow to something else .. for better or worse mainstream is their savior - wp lives with science(tm) as sanctioned pov / npov has become obsolete - so the rewrites since 2014 do make more sense now .. hmm and the 2015 fork date of sites like infogalactic do as well - it feels like it's the second time I am realizing the fact .. Ebricca (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mate, what the heck are you talking about? This page hasn't had a major re-write in the maybe fifteen years it's been on my watchlist.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * another source is on my talk page as yt links are shunned - in a way it is a well known fact to shift perception via intro parts of disliked topics - science(tm) for the win - (interesting that the comment is allowed to live here but not on the ideological bias page) Ebricca (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This page follows NPOV because Wikipedia relies on high quality medical secondary sources to determine scientific consensus. And the reliable sources are very clear about homeopathy.
 * Further, insinuations that editors are attempting to "shift perception" can be construed as a personal attack.
 * Finally, your wording is... very poor. I assume English is not your primary language. In that case, you might want to try editing the wiki for your native language. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sure english is not my primary language - so calling it poor - fine but also ad hominem .. "shifting perception" is the expression the group brags about - really not my words Ebricca (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This article has frequently been discussed as an example of a page that outsiders (usually, but not always, homeopaths with an obvious agenda) have claimed in one way or another to be 'biased'. Discussed by Wikipedia contributors generally, not the very small minority who consider themselves to be 'guerrilla sceptics'. And as far as the broader community of Wikipedia contributors are concerned, it conforms to the policies, arrived at through consensus over very many years, in regard to neutrality, appropriate sourcing etc. If it is 'biased' it is so because it matches the 'biases' inherent in an encyclopaedia that per policy prefers science and academic sources to conspiracy theories and magical thinking. You may not personally like such policy-induced 'bias', but it would appear that readers in general do, considering how often they return to Wikipedia as a reference source. Anyone is of course free to start their own alternative to Wikipedia, or find one of the many existing ones, and read or contribute to that instead. Meanwhile, our encyclopaedia, our rules. Wikipedia has its faults certainly, but not caving in to the demands of magic woo-water peddlers to help them sell their diluted-to-nothingness 'remedies' isn't one of them AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, read ad hominem. It does not mean what you think it means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * .. :) .. i read the page .. personal attack - means - ad hominem .. but sure i can be completely wrong .. maybe to say "also" by itself already is a "tu quoque" fallacy .. :) .. Ebricca (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)