User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:50, 25 November 2017

This is A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my User Talk page, I live in Cornwall, United Kingdom, I am affiliated with the Open University. I currently sign as: Dysklyver. I have previously used a different username and used different signatures. I have various test accounts and old accounts (all disclosed to admins). This is the place to complain about mistakes I made somewhere and to message me about articles I have worked on. You can also leave nice messages here. I will probably reply the same day, but if I don't its because I haven't seen your message, note my UK time zone may affect this. I have various work and research commitments which will often distract me or take priority. If you want to get my attention on another page, use {{ping|A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver}} or post on this page, giving a link to the page in question. I have previously been a Articles for Creation and New Page Patrol reviewer. I briefly held the Rollbacker user right but never got into anti-vandalism. I have access to Westlaw, Lexislibary, Hain online, the BMJ, most law reports, scientific and academic journals and papers as well some paywalled news sources, if you are looking for a source, I am happy to help. Comments posted here will be automatically archived after 72 hours.

Display a random: Article Talk Redirect Talk User Talk Wikipedia Talk Image Talk MediaWiki Talk Template Talk Help Talk Category Talk Portal Talk Draft Talk

Click this button
to review
an AfC submission

Dolmen and star alignment fringe claims

See Glyn Daniel's article.[1] " Some of these hypotheses—like the Druids, the Ancient Egyptians, the metal-working Prospectors, the megalithic race, solstitial and clock-star alignments,—to mention only a few, have been disproved by research and flourish today only among perverse and illogical archaeologists." Doug Weller talk 13:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I can't speak for the weirdo clock theorems, and other incorrect hypotheses perpetrated by modern archeologists, Egyptians or those people that like hanging out at Stonehenge too much. However most neolithic monuments in Cornwall are aligned with a star/moon placement/sun cycle, so it is perfectly encyclopaedic to include that fact. Although it looks like I will need to find the original field surveys before going into detail on this. This alignment issue in itself is an accepted fact [2] & [3] etc, however I will need to get details for the alignment of each individual monument. Dysklyver 14:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language such as "making a case" and "a reasonable hypothesis" shows that no case has yet been made, and of course I don't see a suggestion that this is considered likely for every neolithic monument. There's no point in searching for alignments yourself, our WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY policies apply. The only thing that would be really surprising is if you couldn't find any alignments existed for any neolithic monument. I'm sure there are some and very likely some are deliberate. But we need good archaeological sources to say anything definite. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is my main reasoning for waiting until I get the field surveys. Dysklyver 15:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What good will the field surveys be? You can't use them to show an alignment. That would be original research. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [4]. Note that the survey includes details of the alignment, this is very common, because the surveyors often think it is relevant. However this is no way a detail covered in every survey, so I can't say for sure on this in respect to this particular dolmen. Dysklyver 17:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Silva is only a tutor, and his paper published in a journal run by grad students " to provide authors with experience in publishing articles early in their careers." Peer reviewed, yes, but not cited in any other academic papers so far as I can see on Google scholar. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But how is that relevant? Dysklyver 19:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only that the article can't be used as a source. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to recap, this article, (Landscape and Astronomy in Megalithic Portugal: the Carregal do Sal Nucle Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 01 February 2013, Vol.22, pp.99-114 (Peer Reviewed Journal) - paywall view) which has been cited 10 times in international journals ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), which has been through what is described by the Institute of Archeology as a double blind peer review where it is reviewed by the editorial team and external reviewers, approved personally by the senior editor and then published in a respected journal. And your comment about it is: the article can't be used as a source. And its MA and PhD qualified author, Fabia Silva of IPHES, who has been cited 523 times, with numerous well known works, your being comment he is: only a tutor. So my question is, what you are actually saying? Is your view on sources so narrow that unless its written by a professor its unusable? Dysklyver 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

I have started a discussion about your editing and user rights at WP:AN#Mentoring and removal of permissions needed. Fram (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

I have started a discussion about your editing and user rights at WP:AN#Mentoring and removal of permissions needed. Fram (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So all the "remain" votes in the EU referendum were "inaccurate", were they, because a slightly larger number voted to leave? If the next election produces a Labour majority does that mean all the votes for other parties in the last one were "inaccurate" as well? 86.147.228.61 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is up for siteban at Arbitration/Requests

Good grief! Ritchie333 blocked Mlpearc for 48 hours and told him he would unblock immediately if he asked. Fram and NeilN then viciously put the boot into Ritchie333. This is what they think of Fram at ANI (19 November 2016):

<snip>

He didn't impress Rich Farmbrough either:

Geo Swan, persecuted by Fram (an administrator, heaven help us) and another editor (since banned). ... Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

<snip>

(Persoanl attacks and blatant, oft repeated lies removed) 86.176.15.93 15:26, 1 May 2017 [This is Fram impersonating another editor and revealing by his spelling that English is not his native tongue.]

<snip>

Since Fram disputes the veracity of the comments attributed to him here's chapter and verse:

It was at that time he attacked WMF staffer Whatamidoing, calling her, inter alia, "a total waste of time",

see his comment 13:16, 25 September 2014

"a waste of money",

see his comment 06:52, 25 September 2014

"a fool", a "piece of crock",

see his comment 19:14, 25 September 2014

"rather inflated", a "fraud", and "poison".

see his comment 04:29, 26 September 2014

He also described WMF Director Erik Moeller as "the worst".

see his comment 21:37, 29 September 2014

There's more in the same vein:

Easy like Sunday morning? Any reply to this? (to Danny Horn) 07:35, 4 September 2014
Are you being deliberately obnoxious? (to Danny Horn) 07:13, 5 September 2014
Get lost, WMF (to Danny Horn) 07:49, 5 September 2014
... may be facing the Erik Möller treatment (not how he acts, we wouldn't do anything as bad as that, ... (to Danny Horn) 09:57, 5 September 2014
Flow people are unable to read archive pages, it doesn't fit their worldview! They are probably equally unable to see the right side of the screen, or anything but the colon of their superiors. - 08:22, 12 September 2014 (if this comment puzzles you, see Double entendre)
They have no honesty, no integrity, no respect , and no competence ... - 08:31, 12 September 2014
Get lost. (to Whatamidoing) 04:34, 26 September 2014
You like her input, I don't. It is too often deceitful ... - 10:44, 26 September 2014

Does this comment win the prize for hypocrisy:

Accusing people of "lying" is a personal attack, so please read WP:NPA; even if you think I am mistaken, you should stay well clear of such accusations unless you are very, very certain that a deliberate lie is being spread, and not something expressed in a way that you have misunderstood completely. Fram (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

Technology report: Searching and surveying

Interview: A featured article centurion

WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

Featured content: We will remember them

Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14th of July at 6:11am

From [15], this is on-its-face nonsense. Due to leap days (and to a lesser extent the procession of the equinoxes), it is impossible for an astronomical event or alignment to occur at the same date and time every year. They may mean that the specific date and time was when the annual event occurred in one specific year, but don't say that. (and it's obviously an unreliable source as a self-published blog). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leap days simply keep the seasons roughly aligned with the calendar year. They are nothing to do with the stars. The aspect which the stars present at a given season at a given time of day is controlled by the precession of the equinoxes. You will note that "Procession of the equinoxes" is a redirect - the movement is backwards. Unfortunately whoever wrote that article made the same mistake as you - in a spinning top or gyroscope the wobble is in the direction of spin - although it's described as "precession" it's not. 86.134.217.177 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know, I simply went with the date given and made an assumption that this would repeat every year, if the date/time is different every year due to... calendar stuff. That is fine. But I have not looked into it. Dysklyver 12:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:AN/Lob grenade and run away

Wikipedia:AN/Lob grenade and run away, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AN/Lob grenade and run away and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:AN/Lob grenade and run away during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. My name is not dave (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other's comments

Out of respect I've been refraining from commenting or otherwise involving myself too heavily in the AN/ANI/ACE discussions, but I will step in when you start editing other editor's talk page comments. If someone has said something incorrect, post a reply saying so. If someone has misquoted or taken a snippet in order to discredit you, post a reply saying so.

So far your behaviour and responses have been commendable and civil (given the immense amount of scrutiny you're under currently) but there are some things that are simply not acceptable. Please do not prove everyone right by getting a silly block over nothing. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought it was a simple mistake that he had used the wrong image and missed out the part of my statement giving attribution in his quotation of me. To be fair, the vast majority of the editors are being very reasonable, but some of the are not, and it is disappointing. I am refraining from making replies there at the moment to avoid rehashing the entire debate many times over and wasting everyone’s time (that is the main complaint after all, me arguing too much), but there are numerous errors, misrepresentations and other niggardly issues in the whole debate. Some innocent misunderstanding, and some undoubted manipulation. I am just going to wait and see what happens. Dysklyver 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did keep your change to the image at the AN thread, because it was the wrong image. Thank you for your reply. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, that was what was bugging me the most, although I don't like being quoted as saying something I clearly said as a quote, and I don't like being called Adjead. That said, I do appreciate your not piling in on the AN thing, I know I have defiantly disagreed with you on something in the past and you have my respect for staying neutral. Dysklyver 23:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61\|"Seasonal celebrations"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62\|"First Ladies"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63\|"Go local!"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00\|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 From [http://www.hedgedruid.com/2014/01/cornwall-winter-9-star-alignments-of-lesquite-quoit/], this is ''on-its-face'' nonsense.  Due to [[leap day]]s (and to a lesser extent the [[procession of the equinoxes]]), it is impossible for an astronomical event or alignment to occur at the same date and time every year.  They may mean that the specific date and time was when the annual event occurred in one specific year, but don't say that.  (and it's obviously an unreliable source as a self-published blog). [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 18:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 :Leap days simply keep the seasons roughly aligned with the calendar year.   They are nothing to do with the stars.   The aspect which the stars present at a given season at a given time of day is controlled by the precession of the equinoxes.   You will note that "Procession of the equinoxes" is a redirect - the movement is backwards.   Unfortunately whoever wrote that article made the same mistake as you - in a spinning top or gyroscope the wobble is in the direction of spin - although it's described as "precession" it's not. [[Special:Contributions/86.134.217.177|86.134.217.177]] ([[User talk:86.134.217.177|talk]]) 12:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
+::I actually don't know, I simply went with the date given and made an assumption that this would repeat every year, if the date/time is different every year due to... calendar stuff. That is fine. But I have not looked into it. [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]] 12:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 ==MfD nomination of [[:Wikipedia:AN/Lob grenade and run away]]==