Wikipedia contributions by ජපස

This is a somewhat common way to refer to this.

ජපස moved page [[Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure]] to [[Timeline of UFOs]]

Couldn't find a page that listed them. This is the closest we got.

[[WP:AES|←]]Created page with '#Redireact [[Central compact object]]'

new article.

reasonable redirect.

a disambig from International Journal of Astrobiology may be preferable, but I've seen people confused by this in the wild so this is a start.

new article

Redirect for a phrase I have looked up a few times.

[[WP:AES|←]]Redirected page to [[Panpsychism]]

Seems like a reasonable redirect. As there are two sections of relevance, I leave it to the main article. Perhaps a spinout will happen later.

Reasonable redirect

[[WP:AES|←]]Redirected page to [[Preferred gender pronoun]]

missing hyphen mistake

New article. Surprised it did not exist.

/* Religion and evolution */ preposition missing.

/* Religion and evolution */ replacing unexplained and likely POV-motivated removal of this well-sourced anecdote that shows clearly the material is correct.

can frontload this.

/* Authorship dispute */ more fixes?

/* Works attributed to Kedar */ subsection not needed.

/* Authorship dispute */ Don't need a subsection.

/* Responses to concerns */ We can combine these sections. Also should identify who Heyworth, Chan, and Lawson are.

/* Concerns about authorship */ relevant to this section is only those who dismiss voices as contested authorship--not the general neurotypical prejudice necessarily.

/* Concerns about authorship */ why should we listen to her? Here is why.

A bit better at describing this discussion, perhaps?

I think this is a better way to say it. In particular, there is agreement among all the sources that this is where the techniques have their origins. There are some statements in the sources that things are *a bit different* now, but the specifics as to how and whether that is true are not specified. So I think everyone agrees that this is a correct way to describe the situation.

/* Inventions and discoveries */ not exactly a discovery.

/* Reception */ this seems more in line with what the author wrote in that review.

/* Synopsis */ not a star, but made an appearance. This connection is vital. This is not some sort of luminary. He is connected to the ecosystem.

/* Synopsis */ relevant. Stratton's interest in these subjects seems to be that the Skinwalker Ranch is somehow implicated. Whether he is fully convinced or is just grifting, the reader deserves to know this connection.

/* Synopsis */ calling him an astrophysicist when all of his work now is subsumed by Hal Puthoff's institute is not the right thing to do. Davis works at Earthtech as a "senior researcher" and does no astrophysics at all.

/* Synopsis */ clearer? We tend not to take his word for this stuff because there have been people who have questioned his honesty.

even clearer

make this a bit clearer. The film would not hand you physical evidence, after all, and the eyewitness testimony is over-relied on with credulity, crucially.

why don't we say what it is about>?

Ah, but we have some sources which dispute that it is a proper documentary as well. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. So bye.

/* Reception */ See talk.

/* Synopsis */ this is a neutral description of Nolan.

/* Synopsis */ Nolan, crucially, does the ufology work on the side. It is not part of his official duties at Stanford. We should not appeal to authority like this.

/* Synopsis */ are these reliable narrators?

/* Synopsis */ Why do we need a citation to show that [[ufology]] is fringe? It is by definition.

There is a bit of a [[WP:COAT]] problem here. These US government officials are not an unbiased sample, of course. How to make that clear is difficult. I don't think we should pretend that the "civilians" included are somehow neutral arbiters.

I think this is a bet less [[WP:ASTONISH]]ing since there is a general expectation that documentary style films aim towards an elusive if perhaps noble goal of objectivity. This is more of a propaganda film made in the style of a documentary.

These weren't universally agreed upon to be legitimate.

the lack of a technical evaluation is important. There is no such thing as an "informal" evaluation of a patent.

inventors devise, for sure, but this is notable for its promotion.

better word.

/* Synopsis */ I mean... this is not exactly an impressive cast list. Let's not mislead the reader into thinking we've got luminaries interviewed here from the scientific community or anything.

by frontloading officials, we are allowing an appeal to authority which is unwarranted especially considering that NOT ALL INTERVIEWEES are officials of this sort.

Undid revision [[Special:Diff/1325550881|1325550881]] by [[Special:Contributions/~2025-37919-82|~2025-37919-82]] ([[User talk:~2025-37919-82|talk]]) Absolutely not. We don't spoonfeed readers to get them to come to our preferred conclusion. And we aren't here to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]].

/* Critical reception */ don't be daft. He's written entire fucking books on the subject. Read his biography.

/* Synopsis */ it's their allegations and theirs only. They're also allegations of "biological effects" that are linked to UFOs themselves... not linked to the reports which are often just text and paper. :/

/* Synopsis */ remove unnecessary compound. These are the same thing

/* Synopsis */ we need to give the reader context. He is accused of being a pseudoscientist.

/* Synopsis */false binary

/* Synopsis */ this is just as neutral. And we have no evidence that these people did any SCIENCE in the erstwhile AATIP program (if they even participated in such a thing)

/* Skeptics */ don't need to be so wordy

/* Skeptics */

/* Skeptics */

/* Skeptics */ The quote is directly from the source.

/* Scientists */ keep to the quotes. avoid editorializing.

/* Scientists */ these two sentences can now be combined.

/* Scientists */ This is over-detailed and suffers from special pleading. If there was evidence that the scenes in the trailer were not representative of the film, that would be one thing. But I don't see any reason to think one can't deduce the film's approach from the trailer.

/* Scientists */

/* Scientists */ this is way over detailed. People can go to the relevant article for details.

/* Scientists */ remove [[WP:SYNTH]]. Source does not mention the film.

/* Scientists */ Per talk. Either Lineweaver and Loeb both in or both out. [[WP:PARITY]].

worthy of a wikilink

what is this "from"?

How about this for a wording option? This seems more in line with the sources and gets the real sense for what is going on across to the reader while summarizing our article.

better article

conspiracy theory should be front-and-center

/* Others */ who are these people?

/* Release */ This film and a ridiculous number of others. Inclusion in a list is not a notable fact or particularly [[WP:Principle of some astonishment|astonishing]]. If you find third-party sources commenting on this, then you can include it.

/* Synopsis */ fix for NPOV.

/* Participants */ If people can't get extra information about them, we shouldn't include them in the list. At least these are notable enough for wiki articles. Also, giving descriptions as claimed by the film is [[WP:ASSERT]]ing roles without verification from third parties.

/* Participants */ Taylor has published 0 in quantum physics and does not have a degree in physics.

/* Others */ These are critics coming at the review from the perspective of skepticism.

/* Scientists */ how about this format?

/* Scientists */ is this a better way to put it? The issue is with sensationalism and promotionalism.

Restored revision 1323875036 by [[Special:Contributions/Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]): Nah. he hasn't been criticized for that. he was criticized for cozying up to UFO believers.

/* Scientists */ Loeb is not an expert on evaluating the likelihood of a person being trustworthy in testimony. He is an expert on scientific evaluation.

/* Scientists */ We need to provide the reader with context. It's not as though Avi Loeb was convinced by this film. He has motivation to give it praise since he is courting the community.

better wording

/* Mental health */ sp

/* Online subculture */ aligning plurality of pronoun and antecedent.

/* Online subculture */ aligning more closely with the main article.

/* Mental health */ sorry... I take it back. The Plural Association is talking about DID help with plural identification only. So I think this is a better organizational scheme.

/* Mental health */ don't need two cites to the same reference in the same sentence.

/* Mental health */ let's organize this by category: therapy/coping mechanism first, then positive identity alignment by advocate organizations. A nice way to end the article as well.

/* Mental health */ ought to match prior verb tense.

/* Mental health */ active rather than passive

/* Mental health */ maybe put all the negative stuff first and up front? That way it progresses rationally towards a disabusing.

problematic pronoun refers to identities. sentence works with it omitted anyway.

/* Origins and characteristics */ Seems like we can start to separate this paragraph into two: vocab and overlapping communities.

/* Mental health */ I think it makes more sense up here where we talk about ostensibly negative associations with all this. Helps that it is coming from the same source too.

/* Origins and characteristics */ missing word

/* Origins and characteristics */ fixes.

/* Origins and characteristics */ fixing wording and citations accordingly.

/* Notable people */ must have a citation.

/* See also */ [[WP:ONEWAY]]. This is a [[WP:FRINGE]] therapy and should not be promoted on this page without context.

/* Mental health */ PLEASE DO NOT USE EFN. I HAVE ASKED MANY TIMES. Summarizing the source to its clearest points.

/* Origins and characteristics */ incorporating new additions. We *must* have sources for material that you want to add. In many cases, the material was way too detailed for the article even if it was found in the sources. We need to summarize main points for the reader: they can go to the source if they need details.

eh... I think we can [[WP:ASSERT]] that they are practicing since there isn't a clear definition of what that would entail beyond saying that you are practicing.

Cleaning this up a bit. The story is that tulpamancy was all the rage in the 1930s prior to any discussion of multiplicity. The connection does seem to have been made ''within'' plural spaces prior to it being noticed in published academic literature.

/* Origins and characteristics */ style changes. Trying to make the logic of our paragraphs a little more coherent.

/* Origins and characteristics */

This is a somewhat common way to refer to this.

The background is almost entirely [[WP:NOR|original research]] and does not mention the paper in the sources.

/* Religion and science */ the senility accustion never could quite be overcome, it seems.

Nominated for deletion; see [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Wikipedia]].

Restored revision 1319254381 by [[Special:Contributions/ජපස|ජපස]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]): The citation is found in the relevant section!

/* See also */ we don't need these for this particular exoplanet.

wrong word... see quote!

/* Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe'Cognitive-theoretic model of the universe', 'Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe' and 'CTMU' redirect here */ We can combine these two related sections.