I in the American flag and the republic which means loyalty, one nation pledge under freedom and justice and divided impossible God because of everything.[1]
Billions of voices, making all the wrong choices, then turning round and blaming me.[2]
May 2024 2 Regarding: Interview with Tucker Carlson - Ex-CIA Agent Felix Rodriguez on Che Guevara death
Please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are not the appropriate place to put random cartoon clips. If you feel the need for additional memes and off-topic chatter please go to Twitter. If you want advise about how to do basic formatting such as quoted text you can visit WP:TEAHOUSE. Please restrict discussion on article talk pages exclusively to the topic of article content. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim 2. It does not involve claims about third parties;Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sogaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello Ironcurtain2! Your additions to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Our joint investigation found an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia. The platforms’ datasets appear to cover a series of covert campaigns over aperiod of almost five years rather than one homogeneous operation. These campaigns consistently advanced narratives promoting the interests of the United States and its allies while opposing countries including Russia, China, and Iran. The accounts heavily criticized Russia in particular for the deaths of innocent civilians and other atrocities its soldiers committed in pursuit of the Kremlin’s “imperial ambitions” following its invasion of Ukraine in February this year. To promote this and other narratives, the accounts sometimes shared news articles from U.S. government-funded media outlets, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and links to websites sponsored by the U.S. military. A portion of the activity also promoted anti-extremism messaging."
"The Pentagon acknowledged in a newly declassified document released on Thursday that the US public is increasingly exposed to propaganda disseminated overseas in psychological operations. But the document suggests that the Pentagon believes the US law that prohibits exposing the public to propaganda does not apply to the unintended blowback from such operations."
"Behind the scenes, however, the social networking giant provided direct approval and internal protection to the U.S. military’s network of social media accounts and online personas, whitelisting a batch of accounts at the request of the government. The Pentagon has used this network, which includes U.S. government-generated news portals and memes, in an effort to shape opinion in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and beyond."
"I also anticipate objections from those who might cringe at the VOA and its sister institutions being called purveyors of propaganda. The people will bend over backward as they explain how the VOA “firewall” and charter preserve the service’s independence and journalistic credibility. This, of course, is a crock. With one swift swing of his leather-soled shoe, Trump has breached the firewall and smashed its alleged independence, although a lawsuit to block Pack is in the works. As Ralph A. Uttaro wrote in a law journal in 1982, “The Voice of America, no less than Radio Moscow or Radio Prague, endeavors to change the attitudes of its listeners.” Yes, it informs, but the main idea is frame the news to the U.S. government’s benefit. If the only goal was to inform, the government could save everybody a lot of money and bother by rebroadcasting The Associated Press."
"...the election of Trump in 2016 constitutes the proverbial ‘year zero’ for fourth estate journalism. As a result of the ‘journalistic’ cultural revolution that ensued, it argues that the Propaganda Model needs to be overhauled if it is to retain its epistemological bona fides."
"This book seeks to show how the news media are recognizable as a political institution: because of their historical development, because of shared processes and predictable products across news organizations, and because of the way in which the work of newspersons is so intertwined with the work of official Washington that the news itself performs governmental tasks."
"I want to focus, however, on a different way in which media organizations might seek to influence policy: the indirect approach of using their publications or broadcasts to try and change the beliefs and policy preferences of mass and/or elite audiences, which would presumably affect subsequent policy decisions. This indirect approach might be especially attractive to media organizations because of their special positions as key disseminators of political information. Its use could have important implications for the nature of democratic deliberation." - pg. 20
"Unlike the laws of mathematics or science, wikitruth isn’t based on principles such as consistency or observability. It’s not even based on common sense or firsthand experience. Wikipedia has evolved a radically different set of epistemological standards–standards that aren’t especially surprising given that the site is rooted in a Web-based community, but that should concern those of us who are interested in traditional notions of truth and accuracy."
"So what is Truth? According to Wikipedia’s entry on the subject, “the term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree.” But in practice, Wikipedia’s standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it’s the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject. That standard is simple: something is true if it was published in a newspaper article, a magazine or journal, or a book published by a university press–or if it appeared on Dr. Who"
"Wikipedia has become a ubiquitous source of information and, subsequently, the layperson’s reference: it is a concrete representation of common knowledge. Interrogating Wikipedia then can also be a way of interrogating a manifestation of how “facts” are made in the public sphere."
"To begin, many analytical philosophers have considered the epistemic effects of Wikipedia upon readers, particularly concerning reliability (e.g., Fallis 2008; Magnus 2009). Reliability has been a primary topic of investigation and concern for scholars writing about applied epistemology: the study of whether systems of investigation purporting to be seeking the truth are engineered to lead to true beliefs about the world (Laudan 2006). Other scholars have considered how Wikipedia functions as an example of group testimony (Tollefsen 2009) and, yet, has a different epistemic culture of knowledge production than, say, science because contributors have different goals, collaborate under different norms, and have different motivations (Wray 2009). In our critique and reimagining of the five pillars, we are concerned with reliability as it relates to the processes by which knowledge is produced on the site and who is excluded from these processes. We ask similar questions about Wikipedia as others have. However, we are interested mostly in Wikipedia’s mismatch in explicit and implicit values and how this mismatch impacts the ability of the site to function as “the sum of all human knowledge.”"
Sources regarding NYT misinformation and propaganda
"We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete, we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations." — Frédéric Bastiat
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, former CIA Director
"“It makes all the difference in the world whether we put Truth in the first place or in the second place.” - Richard Whately
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Okay, since you want to play disruptive games with your deletions and copying my edit summaries, using them in ways that don't remotely apply to what's happening, just stop interacting with me. In fact, if you post on my talk page again, I'll seek an interaction ban or full ban, as you don't seem to be here to building an encyclopedia. This is just some sick game to you and you need to stop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for using proper edit summaries now. As long as you start treating this place seriously, not as a social media site, you may yet be able to do some good here. Just stay completely away from politics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by my talk page and sharing some of your thoughts and observations. If you look at the top right-hand corner of my user page & my talk page, you will see an "email" button. I would appreciate it if you would send me an email. I want to share a couple of things with you that may not be appropriate for posting on Wikipedia. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand 100%, but I dont have email set up, nor do i plan on setting up e-mail, for a variety of reasons, maybe that is stupid on my part, probably stupid on my part. I have been lurking for many many many months and I finally decided to create this account. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Good evening, I am new to editing here, so sorry if I do this wrong. Thank you for patrolling wikipedia and making it a great source for Encyclopedic knowledge.
I am in fact, here to build an encyclopedia. My edit history shows that I am adding information to a number of articles. I am concerned that if I provide an edit history, that my edits will simply be deleted. I have had a mere 306 edits on Wikipedia so far. I am learning the ropes.
Your edit history is already accessible and public; you don't need to provide it. Clearly edits related to the US intelligence community are a sore spot for you; you won't be unblocked to, at this time, edit in that area. If you want to make edits in other topic areas, please tell what those are. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Conversation
@331dot: I would like to voice some support for a return, maybe after a month or so, to those other topic areas, but with a full topic ban for politics. They do not have the necessary CIR to vet sources for reliability, as shown by their defense of unreliable and fringe sources. In fact, anyone who defends unreliable and fringe sources should get such a topic ban from politics. Their attitude is contrary to WP:RS and WP:V. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now stricken my support for a return. I think talk page access should be blocked and the indef kept. There is no evidence of understanding or attempt to improve. Even the edit summaries, in spite of my pleadings, are still a nightmare that makes the page history hard to read. This is an abuse of the rules for edit summaries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've reviewed once already, I really shouldn't again, though perhaps the blocking admin will want to weigh in on your idea. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched for months to see the way that wikipedia works before deciding to edit. I knew it would be unpleasant with what I have seen.
Valjean has 92,000 edits, and a block log that shows the history of POV edit warring and being involved in Arbitration enforcement.[1] In contrast, I have 320 edits.
Valjean openly acknowledges his POV. I would be happy to provide link differences. His new essay, since I was blocked, just confirms his POV: User:Valjean/My media diet. And his congratulations on his talk page, of getting me indefinitely blocked with user BD2412.
On his talk page, User:Philomathes2357 begged him to stop speaking with what User:Philomathes2357 considered to be xenophobic language. I tried to patiently explain to Valjean, the alternative to his staunch POV. Unfortunately there appears to be zero compromise with Valjean.
Since Valjean has such a long history of edit warring, I tried to use humor on his talk page, to attempt to start a dialogue with him, to attempt to see me not as a edit warring enemy, but as a normal person that just happens to have different viewpoints. Sending a clear message to his POV editor friends, watching his page, that he wanted me to be blocked.
He deleted these posts after I carefully, systematically, pointed out on these 2 editor's talk pages how their is factual fallacies in his logic. People deal with cognitive dissonance in many ways, often, and this appears very common on Wikipedia, it is to attack the sender, as Valjean does, to everyone.
These are not fringe views. VIPS are group are former American soldiers and intelligence officers. They have risked their lives to serve their country. Many are whistleblowers who served time in prison for exposing American torture and illegal activities.
I have no problems with Valjean, or anyone else adding their own POV sourced information. Calling VIPS or any organization anti-this or pro-this is fine by me, as long as there is a source. Valjean provided sources.
What concerns me is Valjean has a long history of deleting well sourced material that does not match his own POV, not for months, but for decades. Further, it appears there are many admins that support his POV, and are willing to protect him. I drew the line when I had already posted a webpage linked to CIA Ray McGovern page on the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He deleted it. That is where I decided, maybe foolishly, to draw the line with Valjean. I posted a 3RR tag on Valjean user talk page.[2], Which he promptly deleted, then he sent a message to his POV editor friends that I was banned from talk page. Isn't this what editors are supposed to do? Add 3RR tags to talk pages in edit disputes?
User:Philomathes2357 asked me to email him above, I want to keep everything transparent and on Wikipedia. It also appears that long term editors on Wikipedia email each other to help punish their perceived enemies.
At the very least I am happy that I have shone a small light on the way that Wikipedia really works.
I would like to believe that I will get the same treatment as Valjean does, unblocked and being able to continue to edit. Hope dies last. Thank you for listening.
This is an extremely poor approach if you actually want to be unblocked. If you actually would like to be unblocked, rather than have your talk page access revoked, I would strongly urge you to delete your last message (and mine right here) before an administrator reads it.
Wow! That's quite the bad faith screed. My block log is irrelevant here, but I have explained it. My blocks were resolved and/or reversed amicably. No blocks had anything to do with "POV edit warring", and we are allowed to have POV here, just not let them enter into our editing. The insinuations against SFR are beyond the pale. We had no communication about this, so the block came as a surprise to me. I had no idea anyone was watching. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS are group are former American soldiers and intelligence officers. They have risked their lives to serve their country. Many are whistleblowers who served time in prison for exposing American torture and illegal activities. The free speech we all enjoy is in part because of the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
I would like to believe that I will get the same treatment as Valjean does, unblocked and being able to continue to edit. Thank you for your time and patience. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained before, I have total respect for the original work of the VIPS members. They were right, but now they are wrong. RS say they are Russian apologists spreading Russian disinformation. Don't focus on their past good actions. We're dealing with their present actions. The article documents this stuff. Also, stop misusing edit summaries. Write proper, shorter ones that describe the exact edit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS are group are former American soldiers and intelligence officers. They have risked their lives to serve their country. Many are whistleblowers who served time in prison for exposing American torture and illegal activities. The free speech we all enjoy is in part because of the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
I would like to believe that I will get the same treatment as Valjean does, unblocked and being able to continue to edit. Thank you for your time and patience.
Valjean is perfectly allowed to remove other editors' warnings. It is explicitly allowed that editors may remove warnings from their talk pages with very few exceptions. Warnings from other editors are not part of the exceptions.
You are also only supposed to use your talk page to discuss your block and issues related to your block. Continuing a personal feud is not one of those things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am using my talk page, to discuss MY block and the issues which are related to MY block, i.e. the feud with Valjean. Please include acronyms and policy in your personal opinion.
I also note at ANI, you are using the exact same language as Valjean, calling my defense a "screed". I have seen people blocked many times for removing 3RR warnings as Valjean has done. CoffeeCrumbs, I WP:AGF and did what you asked, removing the comments you wanted me too, but now it appears clear you are forum shopping for an administrator to block me.
At least Valjean has stopped obsessively editing my talk page.[8]
I agreed to the second administrators terms about not editing controversial topics for a set period. I still do.
The bottom line is, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS are group are former American soldiers and intelligence officers. They have risked their lives to serve their country. Many are whistleblowers who served time in prison for exposing American torture and illegal activities. The free speech we all enjoy is in part because of the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
I would like to believe that I will get the same treatment as Valjean does, unblocked and being able to continue to edit. Thank you for your time and patience. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has gotten blocked for removing a warning. Blocked for 3RR, yes, but not for removing a warning. Because, again, you are completely allowed to remove notices except for a very few exceptions. WP:BLANKING is crystal clear here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ironcurtain2,
Editors who focus on other editors' perceived faults and compare themselves to other editors do not get unblocked. This block is about your edits and behavior. Think about why you were blocked and how to avoid those mistakes in the future and you might have a chance to be unblocked. Complaining about other editors will likely result in you losing your talk page access. You really need to move on from your focus on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and issues of "propaganda". We are here to write an encyclopedia not "right great wrongs" and if that is your intent, your time is better spent getting yourself a blog where you can write whatever you want. But at Wikipedia, we have policies, guidelines and norms that must be followed, by everyone. Consider whether or not this place is a good fit for what you want to do with your writing. LizRead!Talk!22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this User:Liz, I apologize in advance for repeating myself:
@Ironcurtain2, I'm afraid this will be another one of my infamously long comments. However, it will be my final comment on this matter - the ball is in your court from here.
I agree with you 80-90% and disagree 10-20%. I think you have made some excellent points, and you've touched on some issues that are very important. However, for multiple reasons, some of which I understand and some of which I do not yet understand, these issues stir up some incredibly strong emotions in the Wikipedia editor community.
In addition, the way you've gone about bringing these issues up is unlikely to lead to any changes, and has led to you being banned from participation on Wikipedia. Predictably, I'm afraid. You've inadvertently dug your own grave by engaging in some less-than-ideal behavior, and there is almost no chance of digging yourself out of it. You have violated some basic rules of conduct, so your ban is not really for ideological reasons, but for procedural reasons. So, although I think the following paragraphs will resonate with you, they are not relevant to your ban. The only paragraph that is directly relevant to you is the final one.
The issues you are concerned about, broadly construed, are almost impossible to discuss them without other editors sneering at you, committing astonishing WP:CIVIL violations with impunity, and seeking to ban you. I've been through it before, as have many editors who bring up your concerns - I have an email inbox stuffed with testimonies from other concerned editors to prove it, including prominent editors that everyone reading this knows, respects, and has interacted with. Including administrators. Those editors do not speak up about their heartfelt, good-faith concerns, because they are afraid of retribution. Their concerns are very similar to yours, @Ironcurtain2.
When I speak, I am speaking not only for myself, but for many other editors who express emphatic agreement with me privately, but are too afraid to speak up and risk being bullied, harassed, baselessly accused of wrongdoing or of holding "bad" beliefs, or doxxed - all of which have happened to me.
Wikipedia's culture, in the area of politics, has become disturbingly similar to accounts of the Soviet Union under Stalin - even though a lot of people think things have gotten weird in recent years, everyone publicly pretends to be on the same page, because they are legitimately worried, for good reason, about what will happen if they bluntly express their heretical concerns about the direction things are going. I feel extremely honored that so many editors have confided in me and shared their deep concerns, and just so everyone knows, I will never under any circumstances "out" someone who does so.
It's sad. And, given Wikipedia's staggering reach, titanic influence over public discourse, and extensive use in AI training, it's more than sad - it's a long-term threat to the West's status as a free and open society. Unfortunately, since any discussion on Wikipedia is stuffed with acronyms and buzzwords, it's very difficult for the media to make sense of this and report on it - but they should. The recent wave of reporting about ADL's reliability downgrade gives me some hope that the media will start paying greater attention to the inner workings of Wikipedia, because they are extremely consequential.
Once again, I encourage you to please send me an email. I understand your hesitation, but your anonymity and personal security will not be compromised by setting up email on Wikipedia, and if you want, you can immediately disconnect your email address once you have sent me a message. You can do so by clicking on the envelope icon in the top right corner of my talk page. There are some things that I think you must know, that I'd prefer not to discuss on Wikipedia, because it involves divulging a bit of sensitive personal information about myself. There are ways to pursue your concerns, but what you are doing right now is not the optimal strategy. I implore you - stop trying to talk your way out of your block, and send me an email as soon as possible. If you choose not to email me, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to address your concerns. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I will do anything that User:Philomathes2357 and User:Bobfrombrockley ask. The idea behind Wikipedia is brilliant, ever since I started editing, I now see why so many people love this website and spend so many hours here.
I apologize if I have caused any problems, and I am thankful that their are so many committed volunteer editors reviewing this case.
I agree, @Ironcurtain2, the idea of Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. One of the best ideas in modern history. Mr. Wales and Mr. Sanger are two of the great visionaries of the internet age. I hope Wikipedia will eventually be restored to what it was originally intended to be. I understand why you are hesitant to attach an email account to Wikipedia, so I will provide you with a burner email address that you can use. Please email me at philomathes2357@protonmail.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your visionary approach to editing User:Philomathes2357 @ philomathes2357@protonmail.com I respect people who respect others with reason and compassion. I see so much collaboration and hard work on this website and it gives my hope for a brighter future. I assume you are referring to ADL = Anti-Defamation League? the Human rights organization. I have heard of Wales, but who is Mr. Sanger? Ironcurtain2 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote the original NPOV policy (which is nothing like the current policy - the word "neutrality" has been carefully redefined on Wikipedia to mean something that has almost nothing to do with the English language as spoken by normal people)
Larry is now a critic of Wikipedia, see here and here for a sample of the sort of critiques he makes. It's become trendy to mock Sanger on Wikipedia in recent years, and his role as co-founder is usually de-emphasized. He does have some odd political beliefs that I do not share, but he is smarter than all of his on-Wiki detractors combined, and if his critiques were taken seriously, Wikipedia would be a much better place. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzweil explains that energy, manufacturing and medicine will be revolutionized.[3]
In the 2030s, humans will connect their brains to computers. But the author also raises doubts about the feasibility of this process, and that their are challenges of replicating human cognition.[4]
The author explains what he calls "longevity escape velocity", in which human beings can live virtually forever and will not increase their chances of dying when they get older.[5][6][7]
The author states that the Turing test will be passed before 2029.[8]
By 2034, all of humanity's energy needs will be met by 2034.[9]
Contrary to talk page rules, a large section of content was deleted after it had been replied to. Therefore it was restored, but has been deleted again.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but WP:BLANKING allows users to remove anything on their user talk pages other than declined block notices, MFD tags, speedy deletion tags, and IP templates. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇14:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgordon: yes, you're missing something. Editors are indeed allowed (although it's not always wise) to delete many things from their talk pages, but normally we don't allow them to remove content that has been replied to. The selective removal creates a false/deceptive picture of what was happening. In a dispute, where false allegations have been made and replied to, removal of only the allegations is problematic. Other editors should be able to see, without resorting to the history, the content and check to see that the interactions between myself and @ScottishFinnishRadish: were perfectly normal and proper. The allegations are bogus. This may be a borderline case where striking, accompanied by an apology, would suffice. There is still a need to remove IronCurtain's access here and end this debacle. The enabling should also stop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE: " This may be a borderline case where striking, accompanied by an apology, would suffice." I apologize, Valjean. Welcome to my little box, User:Jpgordon have you seen the movie, The Singularity Is Near? not as good as the book. June 25, 2024, the 2nd book comes out. I am excited to read 25 pages then give up, like I did with the first book. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nobody here but us volunteers. Admins are volunteers too. Nothing complex about the talk page rules, though. You can remove anything you want from this talk page other than the declined unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇19:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
