User talk:Idumea47b

Archiving
Hi. I notice you have cleaned up your user talk page, and that's a good thing to do.

But a better thing would be to archive it. Suggest you investigate the possibility. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Not sure what you mean. I will look into it. Thanks. Idumea47b (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree
Agree with the general thrust of this edit. Wikipedia is not perfect!

You might like to look at my personal page on Patrick Moore vs Greenpeace  for some not identical but IMO rather similar views. Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation Needed tags have a timestamp
Please re-add your contributions after the timestamp. Otherwise your contribution would appear to have occurred before the 2013 timestamp, to the reader. -- 09:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

However, your contribution would need a citation. See the JDAM talk page, please. An editor is directly contradicting you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 09:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

make sure after you make the adjusted changes to the energy field -2 quantum pictures timestamp with picture receipt Phoenix5Joe (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wilfred Owen "blown up"
I agree with your edit. There has perhaps been a change in the meaning of the phrase "blown up", which was used by the doctor who treated Owen. See https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_id=44 The language is likely to puzzle modern readers. William Avery (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize that was a direct quote, I thought it was just someone writing the way they would speak in a conversation. It would be interesting to use the term in the article if it was somehow explained and put into context as the actual term the doctor used. Then, as now, it is still a highly informal and colorful way of saying something was effected by an explosion, so it's not innaccurate to use exactly, even in this case. But it's not really encyclopedic language and it does usually suggest to modern readers a more complete destruction of the object or person than initially. I seem to recall that in the 19th century it was common to say a thing was "blown up" or "exploded" as synonym for "the game is up" or "I'm over it/sick of it" or "it's overhyped" or "ruined/disproved/failed". I hear that reports in the media were quite exploded, for example.

Idumea47b (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about a related article
Should the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which claims that the Democratic party is running a Satanic pedophile ring in DC pizza parlors that have the ability to make basements disappear, be described as:


 * Debunked or disproven
 * Unproven
 * Debatable
 * Plausible
 * Confirmed

...? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, it's just my opinion, but I think any wikipedia article on any subject that is debated should stick to informing people of what other sources say. It shouldn't have to be any of the options you fallaciously present my with for daring to give my opinion. It shouldn't "confirm" it. It shouldn't deny it. It shouldn't give any opinion on how plausible it is, because that is entirely up to the opinions and descions of the editors of the page. It should inform the reader only that all sources generally considered "reputable" have themselves opined that it is not true. If you can find an Encyclopedia Brittanica article saying "it is a myth", then say "the Encyclopedia Brittanica reports Christianity is a form of myth". Wikipedia doesn't need to make our own decision on the subject by voting 5-3 that Christianity is a myth. We only have to tell them that other sources consider it a myth. I don't see what's so appalling and outrageous about that idea. It may seem easy to you to say "well, look, this is OBVIOUSLY a fake story, so of course we will write 'it a conspiracy theory'"...but what about articles that AREN'T so easy to call? What about Roswell, for example? Again, don't start accusing me of "supporting" it. but that's not so "obviously" false. What about theories about American pre-knowledge of WWII? In each case it will be contentious to come to an agreement on what is "truth". So to be uniform we report them all the same way: the FACT is that generally reputable sources claim they are false. That's as far as a wikipedia page ought to go, unless it's a scietically provable fact. Even then it depends. But feel free to disregard. I imagine you will anyway. Wouldn't want to risk someone mistaking the page as approving of the wild theory! It might happen if you don't condemn it in the most clear and categorical. They might not believe it if it just say that every repuatbale source SAYS it's a lie, but they'll be certain to KNOW that it's a lie since the wikipedia page says "it is a lie".

Idumea47b (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what about the shape of the Earth, or Holocaust Denial? By your reasoning, we should say that the world might be flat or might be round, and that millions may or may not have died in the Holocaust -- even though to stop short of saying that world is round and that millions definitely died in the Holocaust may as well be a lie.
 * We do not create equal validity to utter insanity, and QAnon and the Pizzagate conspiracy theory are such blazenly stupid ideas that not rejecting them out of hand suggests serious issues with one's willingness and/or capacity to neutrally summarize professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said. I simply said that in my personal opinion I don't think wikipedia should state anything that is not a scientifically proven fact in terms of "it is". One can scientifically prove the world is flat, but that is not true of all conspiracy theories. In other cases all one can really do is state that the evidence seems to demonstrate that it's not true. All that requires is stating it in slightly different terms. That is not the same as suggesting that it might be true, in my mind anyway. This is just my personal opinion of how wikipedia ought to be run, and if it's contrary to consensus I am not insisting or arguing the point. I simply wanted to state my opinion, which I beleive I am entitled to do. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't know why you are wasting your time here trying to change my mind instead of simply replying to the message I posted on the relevant talk page giving my 2 cents on the way things are done, unless it's just to "flag" me as a "conspiracy nut" for daring to suggest that maybe we shouldn't state it as fact as if it was talking about gravity or mathematics. I am probably totally wrong and I apolgize for trying to make such an unpopular suggestionif it's going to cause such a problem. Please disregard my post if it bothers you so much. Thanks.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are completely and utterly wrong.
 * The Pizzagate conspiracy theory and the QAnon movement that spun off from it regularly make claims that are falsifiable, even if those falsifications didn't require a Geiger counter or telescope to establish. That is thoroughly established by all mainstream academic and journalistic sources on the subject.
 * You are not entitled to ask us to give equal validity to patent insanity. This is a private organization, not a government one, so you are no more entitled to posting your opinion here than I am to come into your home to tell you there are four lights.
 * You should stay away from articles relating to conspiracy theories, probably even from politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that refers to trying to edit actual articles, not merely daring to input my opinion on how a wikipedia page would be best run. You are basically theatening me for daring to open my mouth and say "I think we ought to do it this way". If I had realized it was akin to committing a digital crime to dare to say that I thought maybe we should perhaps think about considering wording if differently, I would have just kept mhy mouth shut antd let the qualified editors do their thing. After all, I am not an expert, so obviously it's best I say nothing at all unless I am sure it won't be taken personally by the editors, as clearly my simple suggestion was. I haven't edited wikipedia much in a long time, and last time I did it I was under the impression that it was run under a consensus of editors, and anyone was free to at least vote on how they thought things should be done.

If you catch me trying to actually edit any political or conspiracy articles, please feel free to run me out of town. For now, please leave me alone, your point is made, although I do not agree. I don't see why you need to be persistent in trying to prove me wrong for daring to give my opinion. If this is how wikipedia is run these days I'm not surprised more people don't do it. I don't appreciate trying to give an innocent opinion an having people attack me like I personally offended them and start threatening to ban me for incompetence and throwing the rule book at me. A simple statement of what policies I was in violation of (if any) would have been more than sufficient. Please leave alone, I am not going to argue with you any more.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Northrop P-61 Black Widow. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Which part of the minor edits that I just made count as "original research" or "novel synthesis"? Because I didn't provide a reference to back up where I said that all US aircraft used the AN/M2, so it wasn't special that the P-61 used it (which I didn't actually say at all)? Or because I pointed out that the aircraft in the photo had only two guns in the upper turret without providing a Published Reference to the claim? I am quite sure that most of the changes I just made were nothing but minor tweaks, so I don't see why you couldn't just change the offending part instead of reverting all of my work back to the original state.

Idumea47b (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've already spent more time than I wanted to cleaning up after you, including on that article. (It's a mess anyway because there whole Development section has no sources at all, but that isn't your fault, of course.) Please be careful when adding extra information to articles without checking the existing sources (if there are any), or adding sources for what you added. You actually added a lot of unsourced details to the M2 Browning paragraph. You also added "(or any cannon, for that matter)" to the comment on the "quartet of 20 mm (.79 in) cannon", which is to vague and potentially misleading. As to your comment on the photo, it's just too much information, but it could be readded in a shorter version. - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was highly enlightening. I see how it is. Idumea47b (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)