User talk:ULPS

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|ULPS}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Quantum Parxexia proposes a novel approach to human consciousness. By merging quantum physics with philosophy, it suggests that consciousness is not merely a product of the brain but rather an interaction with the quantum nature of existence. Particle entanglement and superposition of thoughts are some phenomena highlighting the relationship between consciousness and quantum nature. Through this synergy, new understandings of the human soul and its evolution are unveiled. Alexandros Vougiatzis (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to ULPS for accumulating at least 5 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think all the AFCR song redirects shouldve been anchored to the table NotAGenious (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the track listing? Typically people just redirect songs to the album articles (that's what I've usually seen and it's what I've always done) but I guess you could anchor them to the track listing ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ULPS!

I appreciate you reviewing After 7 (Lay Bankz album). Was wondering if I could get some help with reviewing these pages that are stuck in the queue? (No problem if there's too much on your plate!)

- Bludnymph

- Snow Wife

- Drew Louis

- Heatwave (Bronze Avery album)

Thank you,

- Sovenfire3982 Sovenfire3982 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how your edit to the Anecdotal Evidence page is helpful. You stated that I did not cite a necessary source. The article as it stands now does not cite sources for many of its claims.

In addition, you reverted the article to a state where only one community of people are considered, that of scientists, when anecdotal evidence figures in to far more topics.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. I am going to revert the article. If you can state which parts are unsourced or need to be sourced, as well as why certain parts of the revert are not sourced, I would be happy to follow any guidelines.

Thanks.

-Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:A18E:6D23:2A5E:8FC4 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that the page as it is is not perfect. However, it does cite some sources, whereas yours did not at all. Also, yours is not written according to Wikipedia's MOS. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that I have with the article:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. There is no citation for this claim, no reference for it, and it does violence to the entire concept of anecdotal evidence. First of all, ALL evidence is based on personal observation from the perspective of epistemology. The only exception is deduction of logic. So this statement does not help the reader and misinforms the reader that anecdotal evidence is somehow different from other evidence in the respect that it is "observed personally". How is evidence observed impersonally, for instance? This is a terrible explanation.

collected in a causal or non-systematic manner This again, is a poor definition. What is meant by "causal"? What does this add to the opening remarks? It just confuses the reader. "Non-systematic" manner does not mean that something is anecdotal, nor does "systematic" prove that evidence is not anecdotal. Biographies, for example are Anectodal Evidence, but they are systematic. Random sampling isn't systematic, but it is not anecdotal.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] in some jurisdictions.

This is a poorly worded and non-sequitor statement. A section needs to be made and expanded for Anecdotal Evidence in marketing.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value

There is no source cited here, and anecdotal evidence is NOT generally regarded as limited in value EXCEPT by certain portions of the scientific community. For example, eyewitness testimony in legal trials (which is a form of anecdotal evidence) is the MOST CONVINCING to a jury, even above scientific evidence.

Anecdotal Evidence is the modus operendi of the realm of Law, Journalism, History, Psychology and regular human behavior and it is NOT "generally regarded as limited in value". This is clearly an opinion statement from a very small group which is not representative of the use of anecdotal evidence by general society. Also NO SOURCE is cited for this!

due to a number of potential weaknesses,

Anecdotal evidence does not have "weaknesses" nor is it weaker. It has less aspects of intellectual vigor, meaning there are less safeguards in place to prevent incorrect, inaccurate of fabricated data. This does not mean that all anecdotal evidence is weaker.

but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, 

Anecdotal evidence cannot be empirical as those terms are polar opposites. Verifying anecdotal evidence with empiricism does not turn anecdotal evidence into empiricism. It's simply two wholly different methods which agree.

All of these claims and statements, again, are WP Opinion, or are just simply wrong. I could go on, but I hope you see my point.

I agree on some (the legal one seems wrong to me, could've sworn this is the opposite.) Good thing we need sources! If you can back up your claims with sources, I don't think anyone would object :) The issue with your rewrite were that which I stated earlier. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'm not clear what statements need sources and which do not. Many of the statements in the article have no source attribution. If it's necessary to source each and every claim and statement, that's fine, but that's not what I see in wikipedia articles. 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:A18E:6D23:2A5E:8FC4 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is anything that could reasonably be challenged should have a source. (So, you don't need to source the obvious fact that the sky is blue.) Also, as a lede is a summary of the article body, you may not see citations in the lede. This is because it is assumed it is summarizing the body, which does have citations backing up whatever info is in the lede. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more