User talk:Incendiex90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Incendiex90! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Incendiex90. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Comet Research Group, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for rules like this, but I don't see how it's fair that disinformation is allowed to remain on this platform just because i'm not allowed to remove it!
If i'm not allowed to remove it, someone else has to. If you care about the truth, rather than just promoting a narrative based in falsehoods, you would do the right thing and remove it.
The following information on the CRG page are outright lies that should be taken down:
The second sentence is fine, except for the fact that it mentions Gobekli Tepe. No member of the Comet Research Group has ever promoted or advanced any ideas whatsoever about Gobekli Tepe. That is Martin Sweatman, and he is not a member of the CRG, so this is straight up misinformation.
The reference to the 2012 phenomenon is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, which Hemiauchenia kindly introduced me to by reverting one of my edits on the YDIH page. There is no claim in that reference that links it with the CRG; whoever added it is synthesising data by doing so, and it should be removed.
The rest of the article is ok as it stands, I'm not really okay with GH being cited on there, he is not a member of the CRG, though Allen does appear on an episode of his new TV show, so I suppose that link is acceptable. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

MfD nomination of User:Incendiex90[edit]

User:Incendiex90, 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/User:Incendiex90 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Incendiex90 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. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would note the guidelines for nominating a page for deletion, which includes the following two guidelines:
Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding subst:Uw-userpage to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using db-userreq.
Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the subst:welcome or subst:welcomeg template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
In light of the above guidelines, which you appear to have entirely ignored, would you kindly point me to the particular sections of my bio that are objectionable?
Surely it's not all bad? I would think establishing my credentials as someone who's qualified to contribute edits to particular subjects would be valuable, but if I'm mistaken, it's no skin off my nose to have a blank user bio. (Personal attack removed).
If I had not included my affiliation with the CRG on my user page, noone would have known that I wasn't allowed to edit the CRG wiki entry.
Perhaps obscuring my identity in the shadows would endear me to the others who get off on dictating the flow of information!
If you think the whole thing should go, be my guest, or perhaps instead you could communicate your specific issues with it, as the guidelines state, and suggest particular sections that don't belong?
I will go through and trim some stuff that I think isn't relevant, and if you're still not happy, go ahead and delete the rest. Incendiex90 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the content that remains in my user bio is unacceptable, I am more than happy to nominate Hoopes's user page for deletion on the same grounds. Incendiex90 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like you may have come here after reading the blog by the blocked puppet master Martin Sweatman, or on his behalf. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked with Martin before, I developed the bibliography he used to write his review on the YDIH, I am mentioned in the acknowledgements section for that reason, but I am nobody's lackey, and I disagree with Martin on plenty of things, and I don't keep up with his blog, so while i've been able to gather some basic idea of what he's done on here, I don't know any specifics.
However, to claim he is a pupper master is absolutely laughable, his influence in the YD and alternative history community is nowhere near enough to have people running around doing his bidding.
Me and John Hoopes go way back. We first clashed when he called my bibliography biased, despite the fact that it includes all relevant literature, both supporting and refuting the YDIH, and instead suggested people research the topic on the Wikipedia page for the YDIH, which he was a major contributor to. He actively discouraged people from viewing a comprehensive bibliography of scientific literature that allows them to read all the primary sources at the click of a button and make up their own mind, in favour of promoting a curated narrative that he had an extensive role in shaping.
As per my most recent edit on the YDIH page, entire sections he added to the page violate wikipedia's rules on synthesis of data, but the fact that he was masquerading as an expert on the YDIH meant that nobody questioned it. His vandalism of the YDIH page as you guys cheer him on is the main reason i'm on Wikipedia, not to do Martin Sweatman's bidding. Incendiex90 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. Martin Sweatman was blocked on Wikipedia and then created sockpuppets to edit. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Perhaps pupper master is wiki lingo for ban evasion, I was unfamiliar with that use of the term, but I get the reference now.
Regarding your other comment about it not being obvious the page is about me, were you referring to my user page, and if so, is it better now that I changed from third person to first person?
Marc Incendiex90 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. At first it looked like an attempt have what looked like an article about someone else in user space, which we don’t allow. We have draft space for that. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He actively discouraged people from viewing a comprehensive bibliography of scientific literature"
This statement is categorically false. I never discouraged anyone from viewing any bibliography. My claims that the bibliography was biased was based on its exclusion of relevant historical literature such as Ignatius Donnelly's Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel (1883) and Firestone et al.'s The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes (2006), both of which are directly relevant to the YDIH. Hoopes (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, I’d forgotten Template User page. Are you aware that it isn’t obvious that page is about you? Doug Weller talk 18:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Incendiex90 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ie calling John Hoopes a vandal. That’s not acceptable. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does intentionally adding entire sections to an article that significantly affect its context while violating Wikipedia's rules not amount to vandalism?
If not, what is a more appropriate term? Incendiex90 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an excerpt from wikipedia's Vandalism page:
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
I have bolded the sections I believe are applicable to John Hoopes in the context of contributions he made to the YDIH wikipedia page of entire sections that consist of a synthesis of original research that is not verified by any of the provided citations, and I sincerely believe his intention in doing so was to obstruct the purpose of the project, which as stated is to provide a neutral point of view. Incendiex90 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't believe he was thinking "muahaha let's obstruct the purpose of the project", but I do believe his goal in synthesising the data he did was to provide a non-neutral point of view.
He has demonstrated on countless occasions that he is not neutral regarding the YDIH. He considers it utterly pseudoscientific, because in his head he conflates the claims of people like Martin and Graham Hancock as being part of the YDIH, which they aren't. MS and GH use the YDIH to promote their own theories, which are not the theories of the CRG, but Hoopes does not make this distinction at all. Incendiex90 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key word ls “malicious”. And no one is expected to be neutral, note “ which does not mean no point of view)”. You must not suggest someone is a vandal without making an official complaint. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I will keep that in mind. Malice is difficult to prove, and is pretty subjective so I will refrain from using the V-word in future. Incendiex90 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claims that I was doing anything malicious are false and defamatory. My contributions were specifically for the purpose of improving the quality of the content and organization of the article just as any responsible Wikipedia editor would do. Hoopes (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not acceptable either. And FYI proxy data doesn't have a user page. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Comet Research Group. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This edit: [1] and note the bit about “by Hypnos” was added by the software Doug Weller talk 12:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandabale that the user who initially created the page and moved it from the sandbox would be overly-defensive regarding my comments, but I don't believe, and certainly did not intend, what you're referring to constitute an attack, just an observation on what really occurred. You and Hoopes wrote the page, your fingerprints are all over it in the various talk sections, and it is true that the page made claims that were unjustifiable with the citations provided, as evidenced by the fact of the current status of the page.
This is a comment on the content, merely mentioning the users who contributed does not constitute an attack. Incendiex90 (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you wanted to claim you don't have a bias against the CRG, you should probably delete the entire section of the YDIH talk page where you proudly put them on full display. Incendiex90 (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming created the page? Seriously? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote “ This edit was not by Hypnos, and to claim that this citation is adequate to claim that the CRG promotes pseudoarchaeology and pseudoscience only demonstrates the abject failure of Shibbolethink to read the source” a clear attack on User:Shibbolethink. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does saying that someone didn't read the source they are using constitute a personal attack 🤔 Incendiex90 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it's an example of not assuming good faith. People have different interpretations of sources. It does not mean they have not read them if they disagree with you. It's also an example of not following WP:BRD, which is how we do things here on wikipedia. You should never revert twice without discussion. If someone boldly removes something (you) and someone else reverts that removal, then your job is to go to the talk page and figure out why they disagree, and work it out. bold-revert-discuss. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, are people supposed to assume good faith when a user edits a page to say the sky isn't blue? As far as I can see, the only way to interpret the source you used as supporting the claim you made about it is to come from a position of bad faith.
There isn't even a hint in van Hoesel et al. 2014 that they are accusing the CRG of promoting pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology. The only way to come to that conclusion is with premeditation.
I am open to the idea I am wrong, however.
Since you appear to be defending your behaviour, would you kindly reference the section in the article that could possibly be interpreted to support your claim? Incendiex90 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, by moving the goalposts from the initial accusation of Joe Weller, to something else, is that not an assumption on your part that I am not acting in good faith? In which case, you (and Joe Weller) would be violating the Good Faith rule by assuming that by merely questioning whether you actually read the source you used, that I am personally attacking you? Incendiex90 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (edited shortly after posting)[reply]
First you claim I created the page, then you start referring to presumably me without using my name which is clearly present above. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! Do you consider your accusation that i'm personally attacking another user by merely claiming they didn't read the source they're citing for a claim to be consistent with the notion that you should assume I am acting in good faith? Incendiex90 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, especially with the "abject failure". You didn't need to comment on the user and shouldn't have. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
abject
adjective
ab·​ject ˈab-ˌjekt
1
sunk to or existing in a low state or condition : very bad or severe
Does the claim that another user badly or severely misunderstood or misused a citation constitute a personal attack?
I have a first-hand knowledge of the citation they used, I know it to be a significant misrepresentation of the claims in the source.
Do you seriously consider the use of a adjective to be a personal attack? Incendiex90 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, which, if any adjectives do you consider appropriate for use in discussions on wikipedia? Is my use of "significant" to describe the misrepresentation of a citation by the user acceptable? Or does this also constitute a personal attack? Incendiex90 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this signifi- oh, sorry. This majorl-... oh.
This will change the way I communicate on Wikipedia; I would never wish to personally attack someone by using an adjective.
In future I will ensure I keep the use of adjectives to a minimum, to ensure I am not accused of personally attacking any users.
Of course, you could just follow the rules of Wikipedia, which you are chiding me for not doing, and in doing so, breaking the rules of Wikipedia by assuming I am not acting in good faith... because I used an adjective...
Cool. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Incendiex90 please please consider the advice other users are giving you here. You should not comment on the contributor unless it is directly relevant to the situation, such as in the case of a COI, as I believe you have with this page per the talk section. Which, btw, means you probably should not be editing the page at all, instead suggesting edits to the talk page. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that you have effectively ignored my attempt to communicate with you on the talk page regarding the specific issue in question. Instead you chose to accuse me of not acting in good faith. Merely using an adjective to describe the degree of negligence does not constitute a personal attack, and nor is it indicative that I am not acting in good faith.
You've got me on the COI. However, I did attempt to communicate with you. I would also note that I believed I was reverting an edit you had made in error, as you incorrectly stated in the details of the edit that you were reverting another edit by someone else, so I figured you had accidentally removed the wrong edit. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I have ever been tagged on a talk page discussion there, so I'm not sure what you mean by "attempt to communicate with you on the talk page regarding the specific issue in question." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right.
I created the section on the talk page asking for someone to point out where your claims about it were supported, but I guess I forgot to tag you in it! my mistake! Incendiex90 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that the article in question does not support the pseudoarch, pseudosci claim. It was put there to support the fact that the group has been criticized for catastrophism. It seems in the intervening edits, many of the supporting citations have been removed. I have replaced the best quality ones, and moved the citations around to better support the content. Let me know what you think — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong in my assertion that you created the page. You simply deemed the work of Hoopes and Proxy Data of high enough quality to publish the page from draft stage to full article. Incendiex90 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've responded to the AfD suggesting a merge. I've rethought my original position. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marging the Comet Research Group article with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article would be inappropriate. The Comet Research Group has been concerned with research that has nothing to do with the YDIH. This includes its work on the supposed effect of a comet on Tell el-Hammam (identified by some as biblical Sodom) and also on claims of comet effects on the Hopewell tradition. The article was created to acknowledge these as well as in anticipation of other similar claims about cosmic catastrophes, past or future, that are not directly related to the YDIH. Hoopes (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Incendiex90, I actually originally added those references, and it seems multiple have been removed which supported the claim. I have added back those which support it most strongly. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI and Wikipedia[edit]

I just wanted to drop a more personal note on here. COI on wikipedia works in very specific ways. We love to have expert contributors here, but there are complexities. I myself have a PhD in Virology, earned studying hantaviruses, ebolaviruses, and flaviviruses, specifically with regards to vaccine design, antibody epitopes, and Antibody-dependent enhancement. I happily edit pages related to those topics all the time, and it's a good thing. But one thing I do not do, is edit in controversial ways in those articles. I don't remove criticism of those things, or describe how important they are, or add them to various other pages. COI editors with academic expertise can and should edit articles related to the subject they have expertise in. But they should not be introducing disputed edits, reverting edits related to controversy, etc. Anywhere where you may stand to benefit or lose from a given edit based on your professional connections, is probably a place you should be editing the talk page and not the article itself. You will find that while some things move slowly here on Wikipedia, there are plenty of editors who will probably agree with you if you make a good case for your suggestions. For the pseudoscience and pseudoarcheology claims, for example, there are plenty of people who may agree with you those labels are unjustified based on the available sourcing. And we may have to couch them in "So and so criticized" etc per WP:RSOPINION. But you should not be removing sources or content that criticize the thing your PhD is in. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose rather than barring me from editing the YDIH page, I am given a probationary period, after which an evaluation of my edits is conducted, and if they are found to be unsatisfactory in regards to the above criticisms, I will happily accept whatever fate. Incendiex90 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing logged out[edit]

Thanks Doug Weller talk 21:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited anything on Wikipedia, either logged in or out, since I was barred from editing the YDIH page. What exactly am I supposed to have edited to prompt such a nonsensical accusation?

Thanks Incendiex90 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared to be you. @I have read the papers and I can answer this question as well as the other comment you added later, in which you say, "I would really love to hear which papers have, in your opinion, incorrectly been designated as supporting the YDIH. As the editor and curator of the bibliography in question, I am certainly open to well-reasoned arguments as to why papers claimed to support it actually do not." The best example of a misclassified paper is Petaev et al (2013) which was listed in the CRG paper as providing "crucial" support. Anyone who has read that paper knows that it actually rejects the YDIH. The authors have also subsequently stated very clearly that their findings do not support the YDIH. It appears that whoever prepared this part of the CRG bibliography didn't read the papers and hasn't followed the research. 2600:1011:B00A:CB2F:F4B3:1FBF:9F03:7C15 (talk) 8:11 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)@ Doug Weller talk 08:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Perhaps you should read it more closely. This person is quoting a message I wrote on a talk page in the first half, and adding their analysis after. Do you see those quotation marks around the first half, that close after "do not""? Those, funnily enough, mean this user was quoting me. I wholeheartedly disagree with this user's claim that Petaev et al. 2013 rejects the YDIH. That is a very twisted interpretation. I would ask that you at least try and comprehend what you're reading before accusing me of wrongdoing in future.
Thanks Incendiex90 (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I’d been reading on my large screen pc instead of my iPad I would have seen that. Apologies. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Incendiex90&oldid=1129854187"