User talk:Tears of Ovid

Welcome to Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core! We know you will contribute greatly. Please read the editors' guidelines. Have fun! Crew (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Crew, looking forward to contributing.Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

--Burgmeister (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on the Abortion article, I would not simply copy the abstract of the article, but rather point out that Alfred Derek Farr made the argument, that de Sade could be considered a big influence for induced abortion. thoughts?

Good idea, I'll change it.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Better, thanks. --Burgmeister (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Some things

1. Your email address does not work. The one you supplied when you signed up bounces. It might be a misspelling. That creates an issue for us in communicating. You can change your email address from the Special pages. I do want to continue this discussion.
2. I do not think it is a good idea to use the Infogalactic logo like that, however well intentioned it might be
3. You should send info to rifleman about your ideas

-- Crew (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove the logo and see what the deal is with my email.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it that email address must have worked at least once, so perhaps you deleted it after you got your initial password. However, I have a bounce for it and the user portion is only 7 characters long, and matches what is in the database.

Ping

I forget how to ping in WP and am not sure IG pings or not. My real and long response is back on my talk page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Email sent

Sent you some email about recent things. You can delete this ... --Crew (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited Stephen Hawking image without notice

We had a discussion about the Stephen Hawking picture that I had added and captioned. Crew suggested removing one of the copies but nobody said to remove it entirely or to brand it as a "conspiracy theory". You then removed it without notice at 14:06, January 19, 2017‎ Tears of Ovid (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (118,215 bytes) (-470)‎ . . (→‎Appearances in popular media) (undo) . Please either put it back as it was and/or explain your reasoning. Rectified (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is a term with an actual definition, not a "perjorative" it was added to the List of conspiracy theories article along with a link in the Hawking article; I wasn't able to find anything indicating that it was notable enough to merit being in the Hawking article itself.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You should have asked first, lest you be perceived as acting in bad faith. The subject matter is two pictures allegedly of Hawking side by side in an article about Hawking. That suffices for relevancy and notability. According to the Wiki rules lawyer article you just posted, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The pictures are publicly available. Miles Mathis is a significant minority source and is cited. More importantly, Wiki, CNN, and all the rest of MSM, is not Infogalactic. The picture meets IG standards: The primary requirements are for the information contributed to be true, relevant, and verifiable. If it wasn't, a Starlord would have ruthlessly removed it long since. This is your second notice. Please restore the image that you removed. If you do not restore it, I will. If you remove it again, I will, regrettably, because I don't want to take up important people's time, remove this to the next level. Rectified (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

There has been an unfortunate tendency, I think, among some Wikipedia editors, to use the term Conspiracy theory as a pejorative, or at least as a way to discourage people from pursuing a subject further. The article refers to an article by Ron Unz and includes this link to Google's ngram viewer of the rise in the use of the term since about 1963 (an interesting date):

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conspiracy+theories&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cconspiracy%20theories%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bconspiracy%20theories%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20theories%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20Theories%3B%2Cc0

However, that is not to say that I think there are no valid conspiracy theories nor that there are no wacky ones out there. (Does ClimateGate indicate that there was a conspiracy among certain people to hype the dangers of CO2? There is some evidence of that but on the other hand they might sincerely believe in the global warming thing or just be deluded. Is the Phantom time hypothesis credible or just another conspiracy theory? The truth is out there :-)

I think that in the matter of unwanted content, however, it is worthwhile asking the intent. I do think it probably is not needed in the Hawking article and adding it to the list of conspiracies is probably satisfactory.

But who decides what is unwanted or satisfactory? I consider these theories about Stephen Hawking or faked Moon Landings to be insane conspiracy theories. And I think astrology and all this Young Earth stuff is bullshit. But there are people who truly believe these things. So, how do you have a place for all this without irritating the skeptics while still satisfying someone like User:Rectified? Whitebeard (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It is now openly understood that the CIA weaponized the "conspiracy theory" phrase in order to discredit those who questioned the JFK assassination. They do the same with "Truther", "birther", "vaxxer", etc as well as "fake news" but now only the old and feeble minded are buying into MSM. I am a skeptical Truther skeptic. Like Gore Vidal said, "I am a conspiracy analyst, not a conspiracy theorist". Conspiracies are all around - just an actionable idea shared by two or more confederates. A plan for dinner is a conspiracy. Some are much more Machavellian. Some are more fantasy. I believe we need a way to quantify conspiracies and truthers not unlike the political spectrum. Perhaps we can find a way to do so on IG? Whether IG is the place or not, I believe in fairness. Let every view be represented with cross links to alternatives and allow the reader to decide. Just as religions have varieties and variations, not to mention variations of agnostics and atheists, so too, conspiracies are beliefs about politics and other topics, even if crazy, that need representation, not necessarily equal, but to be fair, open, and transparent.

To put it another way - What do you wish you never knew? You may say that you wish the holocaust didn't happen, as anyone might, but do you wish you never knew the holocaust happened? Out of sight out of mind. I think most people wish a lot of horrible things didn't happen, but I don't know anyone who actually wishes they could have their own knowledge censored. (FYI, "holocaust denial" is another weaponized term for anyone skeptical with questions about the extent of it, or about the exploitation and benefits from victimhood. I won't bore you with details unless you ask.) I don't believe a lot of the nonsense out there put forward by unintentionally ignorant people or infiltrators intentionally confusing issues to help the establishment divide and conquer and exploit, but there really is a lot of stuff going on. A million people in the USA alone have "top secret" clearance. For what else and who else needs so many secret agencies and think tanks, much less a giant military and a need to dominate the planet, while half its population is in poverty?

I don't know about the Hawking thing or unicorns, though if valid that information surely does not deserve to be prominent. If I'm not mistaken, the "Big Bang religion" is akin to the dogmatic belief in science. Science is a methodology that demands skepticism. Garbage in garbage out. If you ask the wrong question you get the wrong results. If money corrupts the research you get bad science. Science is not infallible, but it is wonderful if properly applied. Also, Richard Pearle is in fact a hawkish neocon/neo-liberal (same thing for USA/global uses) warmonger who calls himself The Dark Prince or Prince of Darkness. While there are certainly a few legitimate questions about the Moon Landing and a truck load of inflated nonsense, I won't commit to saying more about that subject as I've not delved into it much. Flat Earth and Young Earth is nonsense, but everything should be presented, explained, and refuted without exception. The real matter is style. For example, my rant here is far too long, in part because I thrive on this subject and in part because I'm chronically bipolar and presently manic.

So in conclusion, I really recommend this lecture as the best I’ve seen as a “Conspiracies For Dummies” type introduction: A Conspiracy History of the World, Andy Thomas (at the Open Mind conference 2013) (I prefer set my YouTube to play at x1.5 normal speed.)

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think people should be allowed to judge the truth-factor of articles themselves. IG should be ruthless in curating factual articles. Anything that relies on opinions or editor-constructed sequences of interpretations goes into the opinions bin. And this would include most articles on what is commonly referred to as "conspiracy theories."

I don't think we can ask for anything more than that at present. Whitebeard (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that synthesis and opinions on AG should be avoided with no topic avoided, but to clarify, the opinions, theories, synthesis, and revisionist histories to sourced material can be presented, even if they are "fringe". Believe in whatever god you want, believe in whatever politics you want, and believe in whatever history you want, or none at all - it's up to the reader. If these "fringe" theories are in fact true, they can only become more widely accepted and lose the "fringe" until they are accepted as true. If there are holes in those concepts they will be exposed and eventually ripped open. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided to change the names of the articles in question to "Theoretical conspiracy" and add a reference noting that the term "conspiracy theory" is sometimes used pejoratively and has lost its meaning.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the pejorative term "conspiracy theory" when paired with a complimentary "conspiracy analyst", as Gore Vidal did. I also like "suppressed history" and "historical revisionism". I think it's important to keep the Wikipedia/corporate media "official" version of "conspiracy theory" and a mandatory pairing with "conspiracy analyst" (or "theoretical conspiracy" if you must, but I think that's not clear enough). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice that one of the editors has changed Conspiracy Theory to just Theory in a couple of places and sometimes added a note that some call the theory a Conspiracy Theory, eg the Phantom Time Hypothesis. The term does have its place. I also like the term Conspiracy Analyst even though Gore Vidal seems to have propounded some crazy ideas (eg, gender as a social construct). -- Crew (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Main Page

Nice job. --Idris (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic and congrats to you and the team, if that's your doing. Obviously the dates need adjusting. Perhaps you might consider doing it weekly or monthly rather than daily. I'd like to contribute ideas and suggestions but missed seeing a way to. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was my pleasure.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring over SJW convergence related articles

Please respond here: User_talk:Crew#Edit-warring_by_administrators - Whitebeard (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletions and article relocations

STRONGLY disagree with the recent removal of the Encyc article. I agree Encyc is not much of an encyclopedia and hardly notable. In importance Encyc may be comparable to a high-school valedictorian mentioned in a local newspaper (https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Notability). Was hoping that IG would allow such a minimal importance article anyway. Seems like a major opportunity to compete with Wikipedia. Of course all minimal importance articles should be clearly marked as such at the top of the page. Also a warning if they contain original research, or contain the specific interests and beliefs of some subculture.

Whitebeard

I've unblocked Whitebeard. I don't believe that the ban is necessary, since Whitebeard has already left voluntarily. I also don't believe that his return would be a bad thing. Like Vox Day said to you, he has the right spirit. --Idris (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was concerned over some of his responses, since even after I showed him Vox's reply he kept complaining that IG shouldn't care about impartiality because "Wikipedia is biased too", so I felt he met the definition of ideological crusading; but I'll let the other admins review him, as well as Rectified.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've received a complaint regarding your your behavior: User_talk:Idris#Tears_of_Ovid. Can you please address the concerns and comments? --Idris (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: "Gender identity" categories

Thanks, and I don't have any objections to what you propose. --Idris (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your message for Rifleman and was wondering if you wanted to talk sometime about your ideas for Infogalactic. I have a vision too of some ideas I'd like to implement. For the time being, I'm mostly interested in programming, but may get involved in editing articles more later. Jean Valjean (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been inactive for a little while, but I'm back for now, and might discuss some ideas in the near future.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesus fucking hornytoads on pogo-sticks...

Either get rid of that Holocaust-denying Dunning–Kruger reject flood-fill spamming the boardroom, or just turn the damned lights off here already, because this barely-functioning-over-comatose-level place has a "done" fork jammed all the way through it and out the other side, and hardly needs the even worse medical diagnosis that it's soon to become indistinguishable from the hardcore Nazis over at Rightpedia thanks to the aforementioned loonytune. If the Starlords and Grand Poobahs and whatnotwhomever else are all too busy on other projects and real lives to deal with creeping blight problems, make me an admin, and I'll take care of it.--Froglich (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Froglich doesn't have to participate on the boardroom if he/she doesn't want to. No one else has told me to shut up. Just because I question the official story on almost everything using my own common sense to see what's real and not, including the Holocaust narrative and all it's pros and cons, doesn't mean I'm a Nazi sympathizer - or an Ally sympathizer either. (Search for "Holocaust math" and you'll find the 6 million number is simply logistically impossible. That's were the questioning starts, after JFK and 9/11.) I don't take sides and I appreciate most cultures, races, etc. Growing up in Windsor, Ontario I had the benefit of having friends from around the world. In the big cities I've had girlfriends with diverse backgrounds, some Jewish. I'm no Nazi. Also, I'm not going to follow Froglich around justifying my existence. If the IG team want's me gone I can pack it up. I only stumbled on the comment above because I get emails from IG about my "watchlist", which I guess is every page I ever contributed on, including this talk page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

It's not listed in the Canons, but competence is required, and you don't have it. Regrettably, IMO, you have reached the age at which you are impervious to suggestion, and you're just going to peddle that horseshit non-stop until you're finally kicked out. --That no one has kicked you out yet is a ill portent for the site at-large.

(Directed to any other warm bodies that may still exist around here, given that at least three of the four Starlords have no contributions in at least a quarter of a year and appear to have departed into the ether.) My interest in further contribution here has dwindled to near zero while the cat is away and the mice are playing. The site at-present is in gross violation of Vox Day's mission-statement, and its most voluminous contributor now proposes using the site to spam Marxist drivel.--Froglich (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hastert

I need someone to tell Froglich to stop an unproductive edit war. Talk:Pedophocracy#Hastert Not only is his effort narrow, excessive, not constructive, and flawed, but he doesn't make much sense to begin with often buried in subjective layers of meaning and rhetoric. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion continues here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Galactic_tribunal#Hastert ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)