User talk:RKOwens444
Welcome![edit]
|
False balance on Wikipedia[edit]
Hello RKOwens44, thank you for your contributions. I would like to mention that Wikipedia has WP:GEVAL discouraging the use of false equivalence. Sentences like "maintained the agency's official position" suggest that it's only the public narrative of an organization (implying conspiracy theories of suppression, etc.) when it's actually a reminder about the current state of scientific discoveries. —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:The reason I initially entered such a phrase as that was to make the point that we shouldn't be allowing people to attribute their personal opinions on the statements of others, as the previous wording of the sentence said that NASA "affirmed the fact" that there's currently no scientific evidence for alien life. Obviously, nothing in any field of science is ever considered a fact by scientists, even things as universally accepted as gravity. In the case of the UFO phenomenon, obviously there are thousands of scientists contributing to the field who believe that there's overwhelming evidence of extraterrestrial life. These would include physical evidence such as radiation being unexplainably high right where abductions are alleged to have happened, physical metal implants analyzed and shown to be of a metal not known on Earth, the testimonials of millions of alleged abductees often with secondary eyewitnesses, the many government whistleblowers, and hair samples from "Nordic" type ETs brought back by an abductee who wanted physical proof which showed unknown human-like genetics... but no need to go off on a long tangent about the evidence cited by the scientists who believe in the validity of the phenomenon. The point is that the field of ufology and alien life is contentiously debated among the scientific community and therefore Wikipedia should not allow a user to insert their public opinion saying that one side is a "fact". Obviously, it would be wrong of me to claim it's a fact that the abductees/whistleblowers are definitely all telling the truth and that the evidence proves with certainty the existence of alien life. Therefore, the appropriate wording for this sentence should be that NASA stated there's currently no evidence for ET life. We shouldn't say NASA "affirmed the fact" that there's no evidence of ET life, just like we shouldn't say "NASA made the wild and disproven allegation that there's no evidence for ET life".— Preceding unsigned comment added by RKOwens444 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- To sign talk page posts, four tildes can be appended (
~~~~). It is true that scientific theories and hypotheses are not sacred dogma and that since the goal is the advancement of knowledge, misconceptions get corrected over time and scientific theories improved. This does not mean that an attitude of extreme relativism should be held, especially when the existing knowledge is reliable enough to be practical (it works). It is very unlikely for a new discovery to suddenly invalidate something as established as Newton Dynamics (and Relativity, while complementing and adding, didn't invalidate it in its domain, which is also true of quantum mechanics, etc). - In relation to life in the universe, considering the time and space scales, it is considered plausible for life to exist elsewhere. The existence of intelligent life is less likely yet still believed to be possible and the existence of advanced civilizations and technology even less. Clashing with other civilizations would be very unlikely, also because of the time and space separating them. So far we have not even found conclusive evidence of simple multicellular life around us. Someone could claim that all we know is what we're told and foment grandiose conspiracy theories of suppression. In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for that, as it seeks to be a mainstream encyclopedia describing the current state of knowledge.
- "No evidence" here is a "fact", we've not discovered any. Let's see what the source says, since it's what the article currently cites:
A spokesperson for NASA said one of the agency's key goals was the search for life in the universe but that it had yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life. "Although we have yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life, NASA is exploring the solar system and beyond to help us answer fundamental questions, including whether we are alone in the universe," the spokesperson said in a statement.
"We have yet to find signs" simply means no discovered evidence yet, doesn't it... - So all that we have are people doing research and people making claims (that if notable enough may be WP:DUE and deserve WP:ATTRIBUTEd mention in the encyclopedia, also observing WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV, like is the case for Eshed). —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to add an important point about WP, in relation to people doing research above. Since the encyclopedia is not a scientific journal, it cannot host editor original research (WP:OR) that belong in such papers. Those papers are also usually considered primary (WP:PRIMARY) with secondary sources preferred. This means that WP is indeed also not the place for bleeding edge and highly theoretical research (but can report about those where due and as described by independent reliable sources (WP:RS), of course). —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:In my revision to the page I simply remove the personal opinions of others, I don't claim that there's conclusive evidence that alien life has been discovered and contact has already been made (as many believe is the case). The best metaphor I can use is, let's say a creationist is big in the headlines with some alleged discovery and you and I are editing his Wikipedia page and someone adds the sentence, "When asked for comment, Richard Dawkins affirmed the fact that humans evolved from primates." While I believe strongly in evolution, I would change the person's statement "affirmed the fact" to "stated", since even evolution is not a universally accepted fact. Nothing in science ever is, and talk like that has no place on Wikipedia or in jounalism more broadly. All I'm changing on the page is "NASA affirmed the fact that" to "NASA stated that". Why is this even the least bit controversial? Are you saying we should be inserting our opinions? If so, is it okay if I change it to say "NASA made the outrageous lie that..."? Of course not. So let's just agree to be objective and leave the sentence in its unbiased, journalistic format.
You're stating it's a "fact" that we don't already have evidence. Incorrect. Scientific evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You may choose to dismiss the evidence presented by the other side of the debate for the existence of alien life, and that's fine, but it's not okay to use Wikipedia to add your personal opinion to which side of the argument you feel is most believable. Would you be okay with someone stating on Wikipedia it's a fact that humans evolved from primates?
- Evidence of common descent, Evolution as fact and theory, Primate ("The last of these groups includes humans."), yes, that's not wild speculation or personal opinion, but the scienfic consensus in biology until we know better, where WP:YESPOV also applies... —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
DS notification[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Haim Eshed[edit]
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Haim Eshed, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. AussieWikiDan (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alien abduction. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
Please discuss your ideas for the article on the talkpage when you are reverted rather than in edit summaries. jps (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alien abduction; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. jps (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement request[edit]
You are now the subject of an arbitration enforcement request. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RKOwens444. jps (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite block[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)