User talk:Justme/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article about Jesus

Hi Betty, it looks like Justapedia's first disagreement over article content is happening between me and LarrySanger at Talk:Jesus.

I definitely don't want to make Sanger feel unwelcome here, but I also have another concern. As you're likely aware, nobody takes Conservapedia seriously nowadays, because nearly every article there is written from a fundamentalist Christian perspective, including content such as arguments that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Justapedia is already being called a "far-right" encyclopedia, and while its reputation is still in the process of being formed, it's going to be very vulnerable to that type of criticism. At this stage in Justapedia's history, I think it's important to prevent it from acquiring a reputation as "Conservapedia-lite" or some similar label. That's why this particular issue on this article matters to me.

Perhaps it's time to try out Justapedia's dispute resolution process. At Justapedia, what's the proper way to resolve this type of disagreement? — Tetrapteryx (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (AST)

Sorry to be the occasion of more work for you, Betty. Is it really the first disagreement over article content? As to TP's perspective on Justapedia's reputation (and the effects of certain editorial approaches), I have a few things to say.

(a) Leftists will claim anything to the right of Joe Biden to be "far right." Perforce anything that actually attempts neutrality or balance will be, for that very reason, accused of being "far right." So their opinion should be disregarded in a project openly devoted to balance. If Justapedia's management and community valorize and are guided by lefties, they will have shown themselves to be aligned, more or less, with them. (b) "Nobody takes Conservapedia seriously nowadays" is simply false. What TP means is that nobody he is likely to talk to takes it seriously, or maybe nobody that he would respect. But this says as much about TP's own political views (and anyone holding similar views), and hence carries no water. (c) TP's rather vicious insinuation (by his own lights, it's nasty: nobody takes CP seriously) is that my edits to Jesus are in line with what might appear on Conservapedia. This is incorrect. On CP, "Jesus" redirects to "Jesus Christ" and opens with this sentence: "Jesus Christ (c. 4 BC - AD 30) is the only-begotten son of God, incarnated in the virgin Mary, and crucified for us under Pontius Pilate." Compare that to the sentence I submitted for Justapedia: "Jesus[d] (c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth (among other names and titles), is best known as, according to Christians, the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." I leave it to you to spot the important difference. Again, it says much about TP and his flawed understanding of neutrality that he conflates these two.

The article about Jesus, of all things, should fully represent the views of Christians, just as the article about Muhammad should fully represent the views of actual (not just liberal academic) Muslims, and the article about Buddha should fully represent the views of actual (not just liberal academic) Buddhists. It should not, in any place, assert (in its own voice) anything that actual Christians disagree with. It can and should, of course, attribute skeptical remarks to skeptical sources (as long as the article is aiming at neutrality). The rule that the Jesus article should fairly represent the views of Christians immediately follows from the definition of neutrality as applied to this article. Similarly, this article pretends that the only sort of scholars that exist are historical-critical (methodologically naturalist) types, implying (quite offensively) that all the thousands of Christian scholars out there just don't exist. Insufferable arrogance and dishonesty, and if you want me here, you must not restrain me from calling it such. --— LarrySanger (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2023 (AST)

@LarrySanger: I didn't mean to imply that your edits are in line with what might appear on Conservapedia. My point was that the sorts of people who are calling Justapedia "far-right" might perceive them that way, rightly or wrongly, and that we need to be cautious to avoid creating that impression while Justapedia's reputation is still in the process of becoming established.

I see that more people have become involved in the talk page, so hopefully it'll be possible to resolve this disagreement now. However, I still think that in general, it would be a good idea to establish how Justapedia's dispute resolution process works. It's likely that eventually, Justapedia will have a dispute that's between more than two people, and in cases like that having more people join the discussion won't be enough to resolve it. Are those the situations in which Justapedia's editorial board will get involved? — Tetrapteryx (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (AST)

You might not have meant to imply that, but your words did very clearly imply that. More to the point, you are assuming, wrongly, that we should care about "Justapedia's reputation" among people who are already calling Justapedia "far-right." Maybe you haven't yet noticed that Justapedia was founded as a response to the influence that exactly such people have over Wikipedia? Why should we care what they think? — LarrySanger (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2023 (AST)

Justapedia's formal dispute resolution process should be given a trial run this time. This is partly due to ongoing volatile situation in Israel and Palestine where many feelings had boiled over to disproportionate proportions and we need to be ready if and when it finally affects Justapedia.— Ron Merkle (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (AST)

Okay, I agree with this. However, it isn't clear how one goes about requesting dispute resolution here. Can you or Betty explain that? — Tetrapteryx (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2023 (AST)

Let's move this discussion over to the article TP, please? — Factsfirst (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (AST)

Can we please first get an answer to the question of how one requests dispute resolution at Justapedia? The article talk page is focused on discussing the article itself, so if the discussion on this page gets moved there, that question is less likely to be answered. And as Ron Merkle mentioned, it's important to establish how the dispute resolution process works here, so that we'll be prepared to handle more complex disputes when they eventually arise. — Tetrapteryx (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (AST)

A single sentence dispute in the course of a day is not something we would call in the ERB or Trustees to decide, much less an admin. JP encourages civil discussion and expects a good result. The discussion belongs on the article TP, not as an experiment on my user talk page. Also keep in mind JP:Zero tolerance, JP:5FP, JP:Objectivity, and JP:NPOV. Per NPOV: articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. What editors perceive to be "most important" may be their own biases at play, inadvertent or otherwise. That is why we let the sources and common sense make the determination, and why objectivity is important when choosing the sources to cite. Another interesting exercise involves checking Google trends using the search terms Jesus is God the Son and Messiah and Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. You will see that, dating back to 2004, the first term was trending in Google searches, and it also lists the books found in the search, whereas the 2nd term did not bring up a single book, and was flatlined. Justme 💬 📧 22:05, 10 October 2023 (AST)

Interface admin

Hi, I would like to request Interface Administrator rights. I am pretty experienced in MW syntax and would like to fix the errors and remnants from Wikipedia within the interface. — OvskMendov1 (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2023 (AST)

@OvskMendov1: Before you're given administrator rights, I'd prefer if we could know a little more about yourself and your history, to make sure you'll use those powers responsibly. (Unless Betty already knows you to be trustworthy, that is.) — Tetrapteryx (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2023 (AST)

@Tetrapteryx: I am a former Wikipedia editor and current Wikipedia critic. I am a regular user and moderator of the forum Wikipedia Sucks.

In terms of editing, I would like to focus on political editing. I feel that many articles on Wikipedia have a pro-capitalist and pro-NATO bias that is enforced by CIA-funded editors. I would like to prevent that here. I will make sure to maintain neutrality in my writing regardless of my political views.

I am also experienced with MediaWiki syntax and templates and I would be glad to help maintain and create and work on templates and css here. — OvskMendov1 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2023 (AST)

You certainly have my attention, OvskMendov1. Justme 💬 📧 09:48, 15 October 2023 (AST)

We need a function to easily import Wikipedia pages that are not yet existent on Justapedia such as the terrorist attacks in Israel. Wikipedia's problems aren't limited to serious biases that favor any given sides; they have serious structural issues such as failure to act against antisemitism and severe harassments of opponents that will make them effectively a racketeering organization. — Ron Merkle (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2023 (AST)

@Ron Merkle: Use Special:Export on Wikipedia and Special:Import here. Also, since we're aiming for neutrality, I'd refrain from using the word "terrorist". — OvskMendov1 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (AST)

Just an FYI so we are all on the same page (apologies for the length but it ranks high in importance):

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, here’s the thing — and which — which — which congressional members?

Q Well, there have been some members of Congress who have called for a ceasefire, and they have not gone as far as backing the administration’s call for support for Israel.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’ve seen some of those statements this weekend. And we’re going to continue to be very clear: We believe they are wrong, we believe they’re repugnant, and we believe they’re disgraceful. Our — our condemnation belongs squarely with terrorists who have brutally murdered, raped, kidnapped hundreds — hundreds of Israelis. There can be no equivocation about that. There are not two sides here. There are not two sides. ~Press Briefing at WH:

Replacing terrorist with a word that suggests justification is in and of itself political bias, as is the use of militant which suggests a military action by a country. It is also inaccurate because the military specifically condemns the purposeful killing of innocent civilians.

Furthermore, many law enforcement groups, like the FBI, use the labels of domestic terrorism and violent extremism interchangeably. One consequence of this practice is a lack of uniformity in the way domestic terrorist activities are prosecuted. In an effort to improve federal terrorism laws, a Syracuse University-sponsored watchdog organization compared the number of terrorism cases listed by three entities--the courts (310), the prosecutors (508), and the National Security Division (253)--and found that from 2004-2009 only 4 percent of cases were classified as terrorism on all three lists. This suggests that the agency that made the designation, not the facts of the case, determined whether a suspect was prosecuted as a terrorist and, therefore, may have received a harsher sentence. The same report found "little public evidence that the Obama administration has launched a significant effort to deal with the continuing criminal enforcement flaws." ~Council on Foreign Relations

Editors should not neutralize the definition of words or the context in which they are used when based on facts and/or reality. During war, when civilians are killed by a country's military, it is presumed to be unintentional and if not, then an inquiry into those killings begins. On JP, we use common sense when presenting the facts realistically which, in this case, tells us Hamas purposely terrorized and targeted innocent people. Encyclopedic articles should not be spun to satisfy political correctness - we state the cold hard facts. It is the only way to achieve neutrality and objectivity, and how we will avoid the same trap that has befallen Wikipedia. Also want to mention that the reports of Hamas decapitating babies has been disputed; therefore, our position would be to include the claims as disputed rather than include disputed claims as statements of fact. The latter is another reason to adhere to JP:RECENTISM.

Replacing terrorist with a word that suggests justification is in and of itself political bias, as is the use of militant which suggests a military action by a country. It is also inaccurate because the military specifically condemns the purposeful killing of innocent civilians.

What military? There is no global military. Unless you're referring to the US military, which would be US-centrism. Also, "militant" is very often used to refer to non-government actors who engage military or military-like actions, like PMCs.

On JP, we use common sense when presenting the facts realistically which, in this case, tells us Hamas purposely terrorized and targeted innocent people.

Fair, but that does not make them "terrorists". The Nazis did that and no one would argue that they were terrorists. "Terrorist" is an inherently weighted word as it implies unjustified or wrong violence or cause. We should include objective facts as you described above, but we should not tell people how to think. — OvskMendov1 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2023 (AST)

Just curious...what is your definition of terrorist? Terrorist and terrorism have not changed from when the terminology was initially coined to describe the French Revolution (1793–1794 Reign of Terror). We also need to keep in mind that Hamas called for Israel's destruction in their 1988 founding charter, and are classified as "a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the European Union, Canada, Egypt and Japan." Common sense tells us terror results from terrorist acts which is pretty straightforward. Having said that, I can understand why a captured terrorist would deny being one. For one thing, it is not as historically romantic a term as what Hollywood portrays as a freedom fighter, guerrilla, or militant, all of which attempts to rationalize the atrocities in a rather dishonorable and distorted way of merely having a cause. The fact that a terrorist took part in terrorism, regardless of their cause, is what supports use of the term in encyclopedic content. Being a terrorist with a cause does not bring the innocent dead back to life after being terrorized, tortured and murdered; dead is dead. Terrorists have shown no empathy for their victims, or their right to live, much less be able to argue their case in a court of law. When adding content, we strictly adhere to DUE, WEIGHT & BALANCE, provided the sources are chosen objectively, and the material is presented in proper context without whitewashing it. Having what some perceive to be a noble or justified cause does not dismiss an act of terrorism. Regardless, rather than argue semantics, let's just simply state the facts and call a spade a spade.♠️ If it warrants the inclusion of an opinion, be sure to provide in-text attribution, preferably using a quote so there is no question where it originated. It's better to leave the whitewashing and other biased approaches to the experts, like Wikipedia, and now the BBC for Pete's sake, and focus on our next Feature Showcase comparison for the main page. Just an FYI, I was saddened to see the BBC's hypocrisy re: their stance on not referring to Hamas terrorists as terrorists. They certainly did not have an issue with the terminology last year in their report dated 09-06-2021 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: How '9/11 mastermind' slipped through FBI's fingers: "KSM has often been seen "grandstanding" at hearings in Guantanamo and Pellegrino describes the world's most infamous terrorist suspect as "Kardashian" in his craving for attention but says he shows no remorse. I'm sure there are more examples, which speaks volumes to the BBC's current defense for not using the term when reporting on the Hamas attack. Justme 💬 📧 16:51, 16 October 2023 (AST)

Also, I have a private library of templates on my home computer that I could possibly import. — OvskMendov1 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2023 (AST)

I sent you an email the other day. Did it go through? Justme 💬 📧 08:26, 16 October 2023 (AST)

@Justme: Yes. — OvskMendov1 (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2023 (AST)

OvskMendov1 – ok, I will send you some information. Justme 💬 📧 10:19, 17 October 2023 (AST)

Spambots again

User:SamiraCremor385 looks like another spambot. At least it's evident that new users are able to create their own userpages now, though. I think it would be best to keep that ability enabled, even if it means we'll have to deal with spam once in a while. — Tetrapteryx (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2023 (AST)

Actually, if another spambot creates a spam user page, I will be removing that feature and only allowing confirmed users to create a user page and sandbox. They can create articles or work on them at AfC. People who are serious about editing and truly want to help build the encyclopedia have no problem registering an account. People with something to hide are the ones who don't want their ID known, and that raises all kinds of red flags. IP editing foments distrust, and almost always results in vandalism. It's one thing to edit anonymously, but it's a fools errand to allow open proxy and IP editing. WP has not seen any advantage in it which is why they have blocked open proxy editing and are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the junk and crazies out of WP, and even that is not 100% foolproof. There are billions of people in the world. All we need is .0001% of that, give or take, so I'm not the least bit concerned. We have no deadlines here. Justme 💬 📧 23:16, 10 November 2023 (AST)

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that you turn on IP editing, only that you continue to allow new registered users, who have confirmed their email address, to create their own userpage and sandbox. You said here that you had asked the techs to re-enable that feature, and it seems to finally be re-enabled now. I'm just asking you to please not turn it back off. — Tetrapteryx (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (AST)

AI filters should be customized to filter out and intercept regexes that are commonly displayed by spambots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Merkel (talk • contribs) 07:18, November 21, 2023 (UTC)

Some people may not want to register an identity that keeps track of their editing history, that's what accounts do. Some are lazy or hesitate to create accounts. The importance of anonymous or ip editing is swiftness, freedom and privacy. The environment is very closed off when we turned off ip editing and is a big disadvantage that can be brought about when in comparison with WP. I don't think there would be a difference in the rate of vandalism but there would just be more editing traffic, it maybe harder to watchlist but still can be done with more users, and the freedom would actually create a more friendly atmosphere and encourage readers to actually create accounts to edit. — B (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2023 (AST)

Test

Paradigm - I just wanted you to see our new stats menu bar at the top of the page, courtesy of Shahadat. Justme 💬 📧 13:24, 20 November 2023 (AST)

Reference errors

Moved to Help:Technical § Reference errors

 – Justme 💬 📧 15:32, 22 December 2023 (AST)

I've decided to make an attempt at improving the Race and intelligence article, but I've run into a problem. Justapedia seems to not be recognizing several of the citation templates used there, such as {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}, and this is creating reference errors. That'll need to be fixed before I can try to update the article. Could you please try to fix that issue in the near future? — Deva (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2023 (AST)

Deva, have you tried citer? It does all the work for you. All you have to do is enter the url, or DOI or USBN. Shahadat, please join us here with an update about our local citation templates. Justme 💬 📧 20:24, 11 December 2023 (AST)

Thanks for the link. That might be useful when adding new sources, but one of the things I'm trying to do is restore some of the well-sourced material that's been removed from this article over the past 3-4 years. Between that article and all the other intelligence related articles that have undergone these mass removals, there are around 100 sources that should eventually be restored, and it would require a huge amount of work to redo all of the citations using that tool. I would much prefer to be able to cite these sources using the same templates that were formerly used to cite these sources at Wikipedia, if you can find a way to make that possible. — Deva (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (AST)

I looked into the issues to see what the problem might be, and what I'm seeing is malformed citations. I fixed this one. The red error messages in the refs section tell you what is needed. The main citation has to be styled correctly for the subsequent citations to work properly. Unfortunately, fixing those issues is time consuming. I will try to help youy this week, but I've got a really full plate for the next few days. Justme 💬 📧 20:55, 11 December 2023 (AST)

Okay, it seems the main problem actually was that Justapedia wasn't recognizing the "harv" tag. I've fixed the reference errors where that was the cause, but there are two sources (Neisser et al. 1996 and Jensen 1998) where the errors seems to be caused by something else. I'm not sure what to do about those, so I'd appreciate you taking a look at that issue when you're able to. — Deva (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2023 (AST)

@Deva: I'm Sorry, it took some time to check the modules and templates related to this error and finding the cause of the error. The journal references you used are not added to the whitelist of the Footnotes module on Justapedia! It can be added, but "Harv error: link from CITEREFWichertsDolanvan_der_Maas2009 doesn't point to any citation" error does not indicate the exact journal, page or other information. If you provide me with the necessary information on the structure of journal references, I can list those journals on the whitelist. Here's a sample of journal reference structures in this template. Thank you for bringing the error to our attention via this talk page. If you have any inquiries, please feel free to respond here.— Shahadat (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2023 (AST)

@Shahadat: All of the references that were generating errors include DOIs, so it should be easy to look up what journals they were published in. For the Neisser 1996 and Jensen 1998 sources, it shows the publisher information if you hover over the name of the source. The Neisser source is [1] and the Jensen source is [2]. If that information isn't enough, could you please explain more exactly what information you need? — Deva (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2023 (AST)

@Shahadat: I've fixed the problem with the Wicherts reference. The problem was that it listed the wrong year for that paper. Do you think you'll have time soon to address the other issues I mentioned? I was hoping to work on improving that article in the near future, but I'd like the reference errors for the Neisser and Jensen sources to be fixed before I do that. — Deva (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2023 (AST)

@Deva: I have already solved this problem in some other articles. There are currently two errors left in the article (Race_and_intelligence) you mentioned. I have to create some new templates. CITEREFNisbettAronsonBlairDickens2012a doesn't point to any citation and CITEREFWichertsDolanvan_der_Maas2009 doesn't point to any citation - Can you share any links to journals related to these two errors here? I am publishing separate templates for those two journals as soon as possible. Hopefully that will solve the problem. I am looking for it myself, but perhaps for some reason I could not find the two journals from here, so your cooperation is desirable.— Shahadat (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (AST)

@Shahadat: The Nisbett et al. paper is [3] and the Wicherts paper is [4] (it actually was published in 2010, not 2009). As I said, though, those aren't the references that I see generating errors. The reference errors I'm looking to address are for the Neisser 1996, Jensen 1998 and Flynn 2009 sources. Do you know what's necessary to resolve those? — Deva (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2023 (AST)

@Deva: Two reference errors has been resolved. I hope you don't see the problem again. However, if you see any new problems, please ping me or keep a message. Thank you— Shahadat (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (AST)

@Shahadat: If you look a the notes section, there are still several reference errors, including one at the bottom of the section that wasn't there before your recent edits. These are the errors I've been asking you about in my past several comments. Are you able to address those? — Deva (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2023 (AST)

While I truly appreciate being included in these discussions, the correct forum for these types of issues are at Help:Technical. Being this is my UTP, it gets archived which makes it highly unlikely that the discussion will ever be found again. I'm going to move it over to the correct venue. Please carry on over there.Justme 💬 📧 15:32, 22 December 2023 (AST)

Hello!

Thank you for welcoming me. I am excited to contribute to this project! — Edward Goats (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2023 (AST)

Let us know if you need anything! Happy editing! Justme 💬 📧 21:41, 13 December 2023 (AST)

Justapedia

Hello @Justme: Are you the user Atsme on Wikipedia? — Scope creep (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (AST)

• Yes. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!! Justme 💬 📧 10:40, 24 December 2023 (AST)

Hi @Justme: Merry Christmas. I hope you great New Year!! I had a read of the documentation, but what exactly is the fundamental difference between this and Wikipedia. Can you give some bullet points maybe half a dozen. It might sway me to move across. I did notice on the mainpage of the project when it compares the Epoch Times articles. On there it classifies that newspaper as centre-right while on Wikipedia it clasifies it as far-right. Thats like comparing people who plant and like trees to Nazis. That is width of the political division. Is the reason for encylopedia part of the culture wars around silencing and canceling right wing and far-right wing voices? I would seriously like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 December 2023 (AST) (UTC)

Hi, Scope creep - for starters, there are multiple fundamental differences beginning with no ANI, no ArbCom, no IP editing, no biased exclusions of sources based on political preferences or ideological differences; rather, for us JP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is also our zero tolerance policy, our five fundamental principles, our common sense policy, JP's emphasis on being polite and respectful toward one another, a founder who is an experienced, old-school journalist and decade-old WP editor who brings the advantage of hindsight to the table, and who produced nature programming for PBS, not pornography for the internet...and the list goes on and on. The more editors who get into the Category:Justapedia controversial topic articles, the more you will realize how JP differentiates. We don't cancel any voices...we include all substantial views...we just don't take sides or dictate to our readers what they should believe. We provide the facts and let them make their own determinations. We will not use JP as a weapon to further any cause, be it political, medical, scientific, mathematical, historical, etc. Justme 💬 📧 18:19, 28 December 2023 (AST)

There are arguments in support of keeping IP or anonymous editing, although I would prefer a nuanced approach. Earlier one had said that Some people may not want to register an identity that keeps track of their editing history, that's what accounts do. Some are lazy or hesitate to create accounts. The importance of anonymous or ip editing is swiftness, freedom and privacy. The environment is very closed off when we turned off ip editing and is a big disadvantage that can be brought about when in comparison with WP. I would advocate that IP editing be allowed in a limited set of whitelisted pages by category which has nothing to do with politics or any controversial topics whatsoever at all. The only example I can think of is hard sciences, such as mathematics, alongside additional caveats such as the changes being made "pending" and have to be approved by another established editor before the given edit goes live.— Ron Merkle (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2023 (AST)

Sorry, but IP editing is dead. WP is even dropping it. Justme 💬 📧 18:58, 28 December 2023 (AST)!

• I had hopes that it would be something fundamentally different, for the better but its seems quite extreme, having read the policies. Reclassifying that newspaper on the main page from hard-right to centre-right which is obviously false, makes that article misinformation of the worst kind; a genuine article dressed to look like something else and misinforming the reader at a fundamental level. Two minutes work would have shown from the industry body that measure these things, describing the paper as hard-right. I'll cancel my account. Thanks — Scope creep (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2023 (AST)

• Scope creep, Justapedia is indeed fundamentally distinct, and I regret any misinterpretation of our policies. However, it is essential to acknowledge that beliefs can vary widely, and our role as editors isn't to persuade individuals on how to think, as this would undermine the importance of diverse perspectives. Unlike Wikipedia, where neutrality is often challenged, Justapedia prioritizes factual information over journalistic opinions. Regarding your perception that The Epoch Times leans hard-right, it is important to note that labels like far-right, alt-right, far-left, and alt-left often serve as semantic tools in the realm of identity politics, lacking precise meaning. Nonetheless, we appreciate your input and the expression of your views. Wishing you only the best! Justme 💬 📧 13:55, 29 December 2023 (AST)

How about making specific suggestions of what you would like to add or change on the article's talk page so it can be properly discussed? Justme 💬 📧 18:27, 29 December 2023 (AST)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!— Ron Merkle (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2023 (AST)

The day has come, and the fun has begun...actually, for some it is still continuing from last night. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you, Ron Merkle!! Justme 💬 📧 10:12, 25 December 2023 (AST)

Learning from our mistakes

I was going to post something in this discussion, but it got archived before I had the chance, so I guess I'll open a new discussion instead.

You don't have to worry about me quitting, at least not anytime soon, but there's an important lesson to be learned from Scope creep's reason for leaving. I'm concerned that you've underestimated the amount of work required to be truly diligent about upholding JP:NPOV. It requires more than just removing opinionated descriptions such as "far-right" from articles. It requires taking a close look at what the majority of reliable sources say about a subject, along the lines of what I attempted here, and making sure the content of an article is consistent with that. (Mind you, I'm not arguing it's necessary for such an examination to be as exhaustive as that one.) I think the largest reason for the recent issue on the Epoch Times article is that it was promoted to a featured article without that being done first.

Here's another example. The term "white supremacist" gets thrown around a lot more often than it should, and on most Wikipedia biographies that use it, it isn't reflective of what the majority of reliable sources say. But there are a few individuals, such as Richard B. Spencer, for whom "white supremacist" is actually an accurate description. That person has argued for turning the United States into a white ethnostate, which is literally what the term "white supremacism" means, and unlike Richard Hanania, Spencer has never walked back his advocacy of any of these ideas. I doubt he'd even object to the label being used for him. If someone were to make an attempt at rewriting the article about Spencer, they would need to look closely at his actual positions and the source literature about him, in order to understand that in his case upholding JP:NPOV requires not removing the "white supremacist" label.

I'm begging you, please take to heart the lesson provided by Scope creep's reason for quitting. I'm a strong supporter of Justapedia's mission, but such a more cautious approach is needed for Justapedia to fulfill its true potential, and this issue isn't going to go away if we try to ignore it. — Deva (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2023 (AST)

I stand by Deva's sentiment regarding this. It's time to stop circling some certain drains that will easily taint Justapedia as "far right" and start prioritizing things that should address Wikipedia's antisemitism and racial bias problem, such as fixing distortions in the topic area related to the Holocaust in Poland and to expand coverage of Native American and Global South topics so to negate Wikipedia's systemic biases on such topics.— Ron Merkle (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2023 (AST)

What does any of that have to do with The Epoch Times? You are way off base here. Justme 💬 📧 12:13, 30 December 2023 (AST)

Adding: And what mistakes have we made or are you referring to Wikipedia's mistakes because that is what I'm seeing? If you're saying The Epoch Times corrections are a mistake, you need to come up with something far more substantial, and that does not include citing their competitors (leftist media) which are being paid by the CCP to publish communist propaganda. Justme 💬 📧 12:17, 30 December 2023 (AST)

I have some fluency of Chinese language and sometimes I do read the Epoch Times by myself. I think I have to agree with Deva that the Epoch Times have biases of its own and actually I did witness some contents that stray far into "anti-medicine" territory per this feature some time ago, like a "make-believe" claim that saying something on the lines of "I renounce CCP" will "heal" COVID-19 which was corroborated by this article from ABC10. This report by openDemocracy which had published this and this against the CCP may provide a good insight. — Ron Merkle (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2023 (AST)

Furthermore upon closer inspection the Falun Gong group appeared to made a Freudian slip in an online lecture that the Epoch Times along with NTDTV are "our media" for them.

Actually, Shen Yun doesn’t necessarily have to go there. If our media such as the Epoch Times and NTDTV are run well [there], the impact of their truth clarification will be the same. And that of other projects can be great, too. All Dafa disciples should be able to play the role they are supposed to, for I think it has to do with you doing things well. It’s not as if you can only save sentient beings if Shen Yun comes. Shen Yun is just one initiative. It’s merely that I am handling it since the professional requirements are high and it wouldn’t work if an international performing arts company such as this failed to achieve a world-class artistic standard.— Ron Merkle (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2023 (AST)

People frequently use possessive language like 'my organization' in a colloquial sense, and it's not meant to be taken literally. It's crucial to avoid the same arguments that have, at times, been used on Wikipedia to discredit organizations like Fox News. As demonstrated by a comprehensive four-part exposé by CJR, other major news networks, such as MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and CBS, have also made significant errors in their reporting. Our mission hinges on adhering to factual information rather than engaging in conjecture or favoring competitors' opinions over an organization's actual attributes. Often, consensus can be akin to three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. If we're going to apply your suggested approach to evaluating The Epoch Times, we should do the same for articles about The Washington Post, The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and then engage in a comprehensive discussion. Justme 💬 📧 14:10, 30 December 2023 (AST)

Speaking of the New York Times, they haven't really retracted the pro-Soviet propaganda articles by Walter Duranty as of yet. Maybe they should receive same treatments in some parts of the Eastern Europe topic area, but honestly I don't know which exactly.— Ron Merkle (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2023 (AST)

I highly recommend that all Justapedia editors read this "introspective" from the Times' Public Editor. Justme 💬 📧 14:52, 30 December 2023 (AST)

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!

🎉🥳🎊🥂🍾

Is Draft:Joseph_Carrillo ready to submit for review?

Is Draft:Joseph_Carrillo ready to submit for review? Does it meet your definition of "notability"?

• Hi, SJSUCENIC - the sources you cited are not what we look for when determining notability. For example, you cited a magazine that is carrying your ad, not a reliable source that wrote an article about you. See Justapedia:Notability_(people). Go ahead and submit your Draft so reviewers can make a determination. Justme 💬 📧 16:04, 16 January 2024 (AST)

OK — SJSUCENIC (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2024 (AST)

Thanks

First thanks for adding that bit I emailed you about but now that I have the rights (another TY), I can finish updating the article. Bambino 📢 📩 13:49, 28 January 2024 (AST)

Proposed deletion of January 6th US Capitol protests

The article January 6th US Capitol protests has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

we have 2 - the other is January 6 US Capitol protests

While all constructive contributions to Justapedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Factsfirst (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (AST)

Oops - sorry for the delay in responding to you here, Factsfirst - I've been preoccupied this past week, and see that it's taken care of. Thx! Justme 💬 📧 11:37, 28 February 2024 (AST)

Captcha

Hey, Justme! How long do I have to answer questions before my account is approved? — EdSmithton (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2024 (AST)

Hi, Ed - I will promote you to AutoConfirmed which should eliminate the Captcha. Happy to see you finally broke down and registered! Happy editing! Justme 💬 📧 11:44, 28 February 2024 (AST)

Account

Hi I'm use 3 account.

1. user:Sourav-- main account
2. user: Sourav bot-- bot account
3. user: Sourav Halder-- Justapedia foundation staff account --— Sourav Halder (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (AST)14:30, 12 April 2024 (AST)

For the purpose of clarity, Justapedia is an encyclopedia with volunteers. The Foundation does not have any staff, yet. We have an Executive Committee, and someday we hope to have staff. Your email account is with justapedia.org which, again, is the encyclopedia. Justme 💬 📧 15:51, 12 April 2024 (AST)

okay I understand.16:25, — Sourav (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2024 (AST)

your assistance please...

Can you tell me what steps I need to take to gain authorization to upload images here? Thanks! — Geo Swan (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (AST)

• Good morning, Geo Swan! Are you wanting to upload non-free images, or freely licensed images under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license? Look in the left side bar under "Contribute" and you will see "Upload file". Click on it to download the upload page which gives you the option to upload a non-free file locally or a freely licensed file on Commons. A little further above the upload file link is a link to Local Media Files which produces a list of all the non-free files that have been uploaded locally. You can click on any of the latter for examples of non-free rationales to see what aligns with your upload, and then you can simply copy/paste it rather than trying to write something from scratch. Non-free licensing is a bit more complex, and requires a non-free use rationale. Let me know if you need further assistance. — AnnaBeebee (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2024 (AST)

• Thanks.

"Free" images I will upload to the WMF commons.

Unfortunately, maybe because I haven't reached some special number of contributions, I don't have permission to upload any images here. — Geo Swan (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2024 (AST)

I will look into it and let you know. We have so many safeguards in place, it's hard for me to keep track...and it's not just us having these brute attack issues – every online site is a target. Justme 💬 📧 10:23, 9 May 2024 (AST)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scientific European has been accepted

Scientific European, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Justapedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Justme 💬 📧 16:54, 10 August 2024 (AST)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Camel amputation incident has been accepted

Camel amputation incident, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Justapedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Justme 💬 📧 16:12, 30 July 2024 (AST)

Shahadat - this is a problem because, while I am the one who approved and moved the article into mainspace as an NPP reviewer, I am not the creator or the one who originated it at AfC. The creator who submitted the article to AfC is Enantiodromia. As an NPP reviewer, I sent that user a note via the Curation Tool which you can see here. We need to fix this. Justme 💬 📧 13:29, 4 August 2024 (AST)

Hi Justme, I have checked all the scripts and couldn't find any problems for now. See a screenshot here Or check out this edit, it seems to me that the user (Enantiodromia) created the draft but he did not submit it for review, maybe you helped him to submit because he was a new editor. As a result, the script saves your username as a submitter, and when you accept this draft later, the script sees your username and sends the message to your talk page. If you still face any problem reviewing drafts, let me know, I will try to solve it. Thank you — Shahadat (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2024 (AST)

User scripts needed

Updated list of User Scripts

1. Move To Draft Y
2. Find Dupes links in article Y
3. Page swap (round robin) Y
4. Gadget-script-installer Y
5. Copyvio check
6. Uncollapse so search can find Y
7. British variable

Should work for a while. Justme 💬 📧 22:44, 18 August 2023 (EDT)

Some scripts or tools have been created-

1. MoveToDraft
2. findargdups
3. pageswap
4. Gadget-script-installer
5. copyvio-check (not working)
6. Uncollapse so search can find

Thank you -— Shahadat (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (EDT)

Mission accomplished...

Mission accomplished, sort of...

I uploaded File:Yusuf_Zahab,_in_al-Sina’a_prison.jpg. In the process I had to mark it with a tag that said its fair use was disputed.

I think that means that, at some point, when an administrator checks Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files disputed, it may be deleted, without any further discussion...

I always thought that wikipedia's fair use rules were arbitrarily strict. A long long time ago the WMF required all the wikis, including the English language wiki, to come up with a policy on the use of non-free images. My interpretation of how the wikipedia came up with its non-free image usage policy is that a group of people with a notion that was extreme came up with it. I looked, and I could not find, any discussion as to why the policy should be more restrictive than simple compliance with the US law on "fair use".

I think I understand the underlying reason why the USA, and practically every other country, extends copyright protection to the creators of intellectual content. Short version - copyright serves the public good. Content creators can make a profit off of the content they create, for a limited amount of time, if it is good content, and that encourages them to try to create more good content.

I think I understand the underlying reason why the USA establishes exceptions to copyright protections. Short version - in exceptional cases, when a unique image must be seen by the public, its copyright protection should be waived - for the public good.

The extremists who drafted the wikipedia's non-free use policy bent over backwards to protect the content creators' right to profit from their creations, even when doing so hurts the public good.

My understanding of the legal situation is that, if you own the intellectual property rights to an image, and other people can make a legitimate claim their usage of your image falls under the "fair use" exception, it is "tough titty kitty" for you. — Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (AST)

• Geo Swan, check-out this image – it even provides a share link, and with that comes fair use as long as we stipulate its origins and provide a good rationale. Justme 💬 📧 19:20, 9 May 2024 (AST)
  • Thanks.

The later image - I think it too could also only be used under "fair use", agreed?

I prefer the earlier image, from the video that showed he was still alive, because (1) it was a shocker; (2) it was widely republished; (3) and the publications that republished it specifically referred to how Zahab's appearance in the video it was taken from dramatically indicated he was alive. I think the fact that articles specifically referred to images of Zahab in that video make the fair use claim stronger.

WRT to making Justapedia's non-free image rules more relaxed, and closer to the legal requirements of US "fair use" law - how would you prefer me to make that argument?

Cheers! — Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (AST)

SEO and Google search

Hey, Justme - a suggestion...the category Potential candidates for Feature Showcase might be a good source for adding new articles to your sitemaps. Cheers! EdSmithton 📲 08:48, 24 May 2024 (AST)

Hi Justme - I see that's what we're doing! Great minds think alike. EdSmithton 📲 11:05, 24 May 2024 (AST)

😂 No prob - it happens to all of us...the getting old part, and forgetting, and the list goes on. Yes, we Abhishek and Shahadat are aware that when working on our sitemaps, they need to use the cats Potential candidates for Feature Showcase, and I'm also working on creating Category:Moved articles that will populate automatically whenever we change titles and short descriptions and make lead changes. If we don't do this, Google will see us as a mirror and not index those articles, or bring them up in search. Justme 💬 📧 11:25, 24 May 2024 (AST)

You're welcome!

Just an FYI - we are working on a bot to do this archiving. — Factsfirst (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (AST)

Google is not indexing this website on a regular basis

And way beyond the norm. If I type site:justapedia.org, and sort by last month, Google should return everything it indexed last month. It returns nothing for last month from this site. This website is self-contained, with new articles only browsed by extremely online wiki people who are tracking the website. That is fine and you may already know it, but there might be a way to combat it. I don't know — William Lupinacci (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (AST)

Thank you, William Lupinacci - we are aware, and have been trying to create a work around. So far, the best workaround is to use Bing search rather than Google. Google and the WMF are partners, so it doesn't surprise us when 2 identical articles (name, short description, lead are the same), Google will opt for the Wikipedia article. Bing, as a search engine utilizes information from Google but have a different approach. Of course, Microsoft is a big donor of WP, but their search engine is actually a bit more sophisticated. To date, we have had good luck there. Our search console results indicate that Bing outnumbers Google searches for Justapedia info.

Mar-May 2024 comparison

William Lupinacci, we are quite confident that views and clicks will keep growing exponentially, especially after we have updated/changed/eliminated/reworked more of the biased articles we imported from WP, and make more of the general public aware of our mission. Also, once we are confident that most of the bugs in our software have been resolved, and our templates, page notices, etc. have all been updated with our name and our PAGs, we will be in a position to accept more invitations to be interviewed. I'm of the mind that our CTO will be a much better on-camera interviewee than I – he has been pre-warned.😁 Justme 💬 📧 11:50, 28 May 2024 (AST)

I think we need to make a list of problems with Wikipedia and list the alternatives we have and advertise them. For example the notability policy, can be as inclusive as possible. Another is the user conduct policy; users as individuals should not be banned, with more relaxed editing policy. We can think of many alternatives as possible and list them here. We also need to have Justapedia establishing other languages editions as soon as well. — B (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2024 (AST)

Sounds good, B. Unfortunately, there are some instances that actually do warrant banning, such as child predators, misogynists, sexual predators, and more typically, users with serious social issues who will simply never adjust although they are few and far between. JP will never block/ban anyone for expressing their views; rather, we encourage discussion. However, if ever there was anyone at the helm considered by many to be overly friendly, as well as overly lenient and forgiving, you are talking to her. When you get a chance, please review Justapedia:5FP, Justapedia:Zero tolerance, and Justapedia:Blocking for starters. If you see room for improvement, let's move this discussion to Justapedia:The Exchange. My focus this week is getting a tutorial video released on "X.com" and other social media sites in an effort to calm the anxiety of potential new editors, and show them how easy it is to edit. Happy editing! Oh, and remember to ping me. Justme 💬 📧 09:58, 29 May 2024 (AST)

Thank you. Less blocking/banning is a thing. I may specify on my thought that users should not be blocked again after they have been blocked for an infringement, when they returned with good-faith edits using other accounts. This should be specified on the blocking policy. Blocks/bans are limited and not punitive, can't stress that enough. How do you think about being more inclusive on articles? I also poke on that one. Having more articles will be a great boost to the site's traffic. I'm unsure about anyone's opinion on notability policy but relaxing that policy should help. These are parts of major differences and perks that will attract users to Justapedia. — B (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2024 (AST)

Oops - had to remove that last comment as it was intended for your suggestions at The Exchange. Now then, back on topic: B, JP encourages new articles, but if I may suggest, please read the New Page Patrol tutorial I created on Wikipedia during my days of tutoring on what constitutes notability. History takes precedence, regardless of the amount of coverage. All we basically need is (1) common sense, (2) verifiability, and occasionally, (3) a worthy source to corroborate it. We have long since learned that mention in mainstream media's bubble doesn't necessarily warrant "notability". Justme 💬 📧 14:19, 30 May 2024 (AST)

• Google seems to take special measures so changes to wikipedia pages get reflected on google search pages essentially immediately... I have noticed this long search engine latency on other non-WMF wikis. It can be months. It is very frustrating when you created a new article on a notable topic NOT covered by the wikipedia, thinking that its coverage on the non-WMF wiki will boost public acceptance of the non-WMF wiki... but it doesn't, because it takes months before the public can find the article through google...

A side effect of this phenomenon is that pages that start off with a __NOINDEX__ stay unindexed, even months after a discussion concludes that caution was unnecessary. For that reason I learned to prepare those drafts in userspace, call for discussion, and then remove the __NOINDEX__ prior to moving the page to article space, if the consensus is the page does merit belonging... — Geo Swan (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2024 (AST)