Talk:Christopher Langan: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Langan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Christopher Langan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Christopher Langan at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WikiProject Intelligent design Education Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Langan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Christopher Langan (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. DrL (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2006) Archive 2 (January–March 2007) Archive 3 (March–April 2007) Archive 4 (May 2007–Oct 2009) Archive 5 (Oct 2009- )

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Pardon me, but in the spirit of improving this article, I have a few comments that I hope will be regarded as constructive. One of them has to do with the following sentence:

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also argued that it 'isn't particularly scientific—or original', saying 'it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design.'"

I don't know much about Justin Ward. Apparently, he's a left-leaning journalist who decided to write what most would consider an unfavorable article about me, possibly out of some combination of spite and opportunism. Of course, he's entitled to his opinions, negative as they may be. But he is not a credible authority on my work. I doubt he's read a word of it, and with all due respect, something tells me that he might have trouble understanding it even if he tried.

Mr. Ward wrote what he wrote, so I won't take issue with the sourcing. But there is simply no way that the content of his opinion on the CTMU is discernibly connected to fact, let alone technically accurate. Even where absolute nonsense comes from a known source, it was never the intention of Wikipedia to propagate nonsense, at least in the biographies of those toward whom it has been unkindly directed.

First, the CTMU is in fact highly original. It contains more new concepts than the work of any modern philosopher of whom I'm aware, something for which I've taken a great deal of heat over the years. The simple fact is that most "critics" of the theory have proven to be people who don't understand it, but who were determined to cancel and/or polemicize against certain ideas with which it was mistakenly associated.

Secondly, there is absolutely no way to reasonably claim that anything I've ever written is "a repackaging of intelligent design". The very idea is absurd. The structure of the CTMU resembles ID Theory in just a single particular: the structure and dynamics of reality involve intelligence and intentionality in the most generic sense of those terms. The term "God", where used at all, is used to label cosmological generalizations of intelligence and intentionality independently of religious doctrine.

Even if one wants to characterize both theories, the CTMU and ID, as "arguments for the existence of God", they differ in many crucial respects. For example, whereas ID relies on probability theory and resembles the teleological argument, the CTMU contains no probabilistic reasoning and most closely resembles the ontological argument ... but even so, is vastly divergent from the standard versions.

As far as Mark Chu-Carroll is concerned, I debated him years ago in the comments of one of his several explosive anti-CTMU blog posts, and carefully explained to him why the CTMU is in no way equivalent to "naive set theory". In the course of this debate, I learned that Mr. Chu-Carroll was, shall we say, unclear on the distinction between "set" and "set theory" as well as on the meanings of certain mathematical concepts including "set", "model", and "syntax". The debate remains there for all to see (if not necessarily to understand), at least up to the point at which he began childishly "disemvoweling" my responses in order to "win the debate" (which he failed to actually do).

This situation is especially problematical because certain Wikipedians refuse to let Wikipedia host an article on the CTMU. The reason is apparently that among Wikipedia's editors and administrators, there are militant atheists who have either confused the CTMU with "Intelligent Design", reacted against the CTMU because it contradicts their philosophical opinions, or decided to censor my work because they personally dislike or resent me. But in any case, it is clearly unfair to exclude the CTMU from encyclopedic coverage while relaying misinformation about it.

Encyclopedias are not supposed to be about "cancel culture". The CTMU is absolutely unique in its logical structure. It has profound philosophical and scientific implications, is described in highly significant publications dating from 1989, and is clearly described in many online essays and social media comments as well as half a dozen clear and well-written articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. If Wikipedia doesn't want anyone to know about it, so be it. But may I at least humbly request that the public not be blatantly misinformed about it?

Regarding the "Controversial views" section, it's a bit lopsided - I have some conservative views and some liberal views, and although I think that conspiracies do in fact exist in high places (consistently with decision theory, which shows conspiracy to be rational under conditions satisfied by some highly placed people in certain situations), I'm certainly not one of those individuals who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. I reject conspiracy theories I find insubstantial, but I'm not sure that this comes across in the wording.

As always, thank you for your attention, and I do appreciate the efforts of conscientious and well-meaning Wikipedia editors and administrators to make the article as fair and accurate as possible. Chris Langan (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Langan: This really isn't the place to rebut other peoples views on your work. It's also not the greatest place to try to correct mischaracterizations of your work, unless you can show sourcing that backs it up. Though it might seem like bizarre practice, we can't actually take your word for it even though this is your work—we have to go by what reliable sources have said. If you have published clarifications like this somewhere else (your website, for example) we could potentially write that you have disagreed with characterizations of your work, but we can't just point to an account we haven't even verified to be you, posting a comment on the Wikipedia article talk page. If other reputable sources (see WP:RS and WP:IND) have published their views on the CTMU, certainly feel free to link them here so they can potentially be added to the article here.

As for your claims that people are "refusing to let Wikipedia host an article on the CTMU", that is an extremely bad faith argument that frankly contradicts all evidence. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles about topics that are unquestionably about intelligent design and other religious topics (for example, the article on intelligent design itself)—Wikipedia does not exclude articles about religion, religious ideas, or anything of the sort. Furthermore, a skim of the deletion discussion for that page shows that it was deleted primarily because of notability concerns. That said, the discussion happened in 2005, so I imagine the state of things may have changed substantially since then. Still, it doesn't appear anyone has made any substantial attempts to reintroduce the page (at least going by this history). You certainly should not be the one to do so, per WP:COI.

As for the controversial views section, it seems to fairly accurately reflect what has been reported in reliable sources. While I have no reason to doubt that you indeed hold views of all kinds, we have to go by what the sourcing says there (rather than draw our own conclusions about what beliefs of yours are "controversial", which I imagine you'd agree would be a problematic approach). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. However, it seems to me that whether or not a source is "reliable" should reflect the subject(s) regarding which he or she can be reasonably credited with knowledge. As I've pointed out, Ward shows no sign of having any knowledge whatsoever of the CTMU, except how to spell it. Furthermore, he has not "argued" that the CTMU is what he says it is - he has merely stated it.

As for your "bad faith" accusation, my observations on the CTMU article are based on Wikipedia history dating back to 2006, in the course of which everything I just said was arguably shown to be true. The conflict went on for months and left a bad taste in the mouths of many people, which perhaps explains why no one has ever bothered to attempt a restoration. (If there was any "bad faith" involved, it was not displayed by supporters of the CTMU article.) As for the many pages generated on this issue in 2006, most of them can no longer be found on this site, so I'm pretty sure you haven't read them.

But again, thank you for your very informative remarks, and have a nice day. Chris Langan (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, most people have their own opinions on what should constitute a "reliable source". That's why we have the reliable sources policy—to try to standardize it so it can be applied consistently on Wikipedia.

I have not read all the arguments on the CTMU, no—I have read some of them, and I've certainly spent enough time already reading all the arguments that this page has attracted. But your accusations against Wikipedians are not different from accusations I read often, and I find that what often appears to people as concerted attacks on their work based on various biases often tend to turn out to be a group of Wikipedians explaining that a subject is not appropriate for Wikipedia based on policy. Still, my point remains that what was argued in the mid-2000s probably doesn't hold much bearing on conversations about that topic that might be held today (both because of changes in reporting on the subject, but also because of changes in Wikipedia policies and guidelines). If someone does try to recreate the article I will certainly watch with interest. Be well, GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baffler absolutely not appropriate. Gorillawarfare is acting totally innappropriately. Too invested - back off and let consensus decide. Crdvyniu (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A first step would be to list independent reliable sources that cover the topic. If the independent coverage is significant, it would indicate the notability of CTMU and that there's enough material to write on it. Without it, another iteration of the CTMU article risks getting deleted again at WP:AFD. Not being an administrator, I do not have access to the old article and its sources. If the hypotheses or model gained traction, we can assume that more sources exist since its deletion. Even if they are few, they may still be useful to improve this very article. Important aspects sources should help with: why it is notable, main tenets, its influences, what impact it had on philosophy, math, cosmology or movements, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Return Controversial views section to it previous format and lock article indefinitely, article appears to have been vandalized yet again. 5.41.109.121 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to the first part. If you think the article needs to be protected at a higher level than it already is you can request it at WP:RFPP, but in my opinion the semi-protection has handled most of the outright vandalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part about 'intelligent design' is deeply unfair and objectively wrong.There is no resemblance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.73.97 (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source saying this, or is this just your opinion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan himself. do you think defamation is a reliable source? this is your opinion. you are targeting him because he is a theist. he has never advocated intelligent design. his CTMU theory has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Repeating what a reliable source published, with in-text attribution, is not "targeting" Langan. If a third party reliable source has published Langan saying it is not intelligent design, we can add that as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reliable source. The third party 'source' is a slander article that calls him Alex Jones with a thesarus. You can't use that as a source. It's unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed the quality of the source on this page already, and it was decided that with in-text attribution it's acceptable to use. So far you haven't provided any argument for why it doesn't meet WP:RS, other than that you dislike the source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE states "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The severe lack of legitimate scrutiny given to checking facts is evident in the Baffler source from blatantly erroneous assertions such as "the CTMU isn’t particularly scientific—or original", "the CTMU could best be described as intelligent design buried beneath an impenetrable word salad made up of neologisms", and "[Chris Langan's] entire identity rests on IQ tests". No explanation needed; these phrases are obvious slander. -- Concerned Bystander 2600:1700:DD0:3670:3977:9DC0:7C0:F14E (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an opinion doesn't match yours doesn't make it erroneous, or slander. Ward's criticism of the CTMU is adequately attributed in-text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a libelous source which defames and namescalls langan as a 'alex jones with a thesaurus' is not an objective source for information. on wikipedia people want objective sources. this is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would urge you to read about how we determine which sources are reliable. It's based on editorial oversight, history of fact-checking, etc., not based on whether or not we agree with what their articles say. I would also encourage you to read about what slander and libel are. I have repeated myself enough in this conversation so at this point, I'm going to leave this. As I've already said, if at any point you find reliable sources presenting other viewpoints, I'd be happy to see them and potentially add them to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument as presented is circular. They argue that the source is defaming, libelous, and slanderous, and therefore should not be used as a reliable source, but why is it defaming, libelous an slanderous? Because it says that Langan's CTMU is a re-packaging of intelligent design. So the IP simply makes the assumption, based on their own opinion, that the statement is untrue and unfair, which means that the source is unreliable.
  We work in a different way. We have a policy, WP:reliable sources, which outlines what makes a source reliable or not, which has to do with things like having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and publishing corrections when they're wrong. Those are the criteria, but whether any particular source meets those criteria is a matter for editors to reach a WP:consensus on. That consensus discussion can take place here, on the article talk page, or, if a wider discussion is needed, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where editors who often discussion these questions can take on the source in question. The opinion of the subject of the article about the source can certainly be considered, but it is not controlling, the RS policy and the consensus discussion is.
  There also is a difference between when we report someone's opinion, and when we state something as a fact in Wikipedia's "voice". In this case, the article does not state as a fcat that Lngan's CTMU is "a repackaging of intelligent design", it reports someone's opinion that this is the case, taking care to state who expressed the opinion and where. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous discussion about wether The Bafller is a reliable source is here. As I read it, the consensus was that it is a reliable source, but that the opinion should not be expressed in Wikipedia's voice. That's what we have in the article now. Further complaints that the sources is defaming, libelous or slanderous (which are not the same thing, by the way) will need to be backed up by citations from a reliable source as to why The Baffler is unreliable, or to Justin Ward's lack of credibility to express the opinion offered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Beyond My Ken and GorillaWarfare here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The last paragraph of the personal life section also includes a statement about his own views. I don't see a problem with the article. It's normal for people to express opinions on ideas and those presented are attributed to their authors. —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Including a 'source' that is an article full of insults such as calling Langan 'alex jones with a thesaurus' is absurd and unproffessional. Imagine if you did this on Buddha's wikipedia or another philosopher. You don't allow this on other articles, but for some reason, on this one you do. For Jesus wikipedia page, there is no amateur source listed that have a thinly veiled insult like 'The bible is just repackaged judaism', but for some odd reason, you believe here it should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You're stuck in a loop, saying the same things over and over again. You clearly have not read any of the policies you've been pointed to. If you continue to waste everyone's time with that kind of behavior, you'll likely to end up being blocked from editing this article and talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You should read the policies. You clearly have not read any of them otherwise you would not allow an amateur source that is insulting on this article. You wouldn't do that on Jesus or Buddha so don't do it here. It's unproffesional. There is no reason why I would be blocked. I have only demonstrated holes in your thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're right, in my 15 years here, making over 250,000 edits, I have never, ever, bothered to familiarize myself with any of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or essays. I've just been winging it all these years, whereas you, with your 11 edits in 6 days have managed to read them all and placed yourself in a position to tell long-time editors and administrators that they don't know squat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So finally coming back to this. I initially didn't know access to other older on-WP CTMU material was possible, but having found it:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
• An older version of the CTMU article and its sources
• Mega Foundation and Research Group would be a personal website of the author
• ISCID a (defunct?) ID/DI-affiliated project to produce a journal without adequate independent academic peer review (fellows, biography, paper)

Having read the paper it is clear to me that it presents circular arguments of design and objects to mainstream biological evolution and mainstream cosmology. Being already familiar with "specified complexity", "irreducible complexity" and a number of other similar relativist and/or idealist arguments, seeing the fellows page unfortunately further confirms the association. This appears to correspond to Justin Ward's assessment in The Baffler, afterall... With some experience determining the demarcation problem, CTMU falls under the WP:PSCI policy. Having been a proponent and author of such arguments myself, this assessment should not be considered an insult to intelligence: it's my experience that very intelligent people also have the ability to confuse testable reality and very convincing imaginary models. Afterall, much remains unknown about the actual world, while one can express many ideas and thought experiments, via philosophy, language, mathematics and symbols, no matter how testable against reality...
Unfortunately, looking at not only the recent threads but also at previous endless debates, with evidence of off-wiki campaigns, convinced me that I should probably not spend much more time on this... —PaleoNeonate – 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violated policy numerous times. Can another admin pls review this article. GW has obviously become emotionally involved. Am I the only one who sees this admin run amock? Crdvyniu (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Crdvyniu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you referring to where I undid your removal of the entire "Controversial views" section, when you falsely claimed there was consensus on this talk page for its removal? Because there's no such consensus here, as you can plainly see. I have not violated policy, nor am I acting in any administrative capacity to do with this article. As a side note, your previous edit to this talk page was to a section over a month old. Not sure if you meant to put it there or meant for it to be down here in a new section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GW is correct, there was, and is, no consensus to remove the controversy section, and I see no signs that GW needs to take a break from the article. As for other admins, User:JzG has gone through the article, but it's not the job of admins to "review" articles - their primary job as admins is to police behavior. Any editor, admin or not, can "review" articles, if they're interested in doing so.

There is no justification to say that GW has "run amock", a statement which I believe is perilously close to a personal attack, and saying that she has "violated policy numerous times" is itself a violation ofWP:Casting aspersions because you have presented no evidence of such a violation on her part. She's simply doing what Wikipedia editors do, editing an article as she sees fit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crdvyniu: I am an administrator. I will block you if you repeat anything that looks like a personal attack. This is an article talk page to be used to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources. Any further commenting on contributors will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of, "According to the observation of a journalist," in the Controversial Views section sounds like an attempt to skew the page. In fact, there are at least two journalists who have referred to Chris Langan's racist social media posts: Justin Ward writing in the The Baffler, and Christopher Feldman writing in The Forward. The edit could be changed to, "According to journalists," or "According to some journalists," but even that seems unnecessary. I recommend just undoing the edit entirely.

Thank you. 90.208.134.158 (talk)

I already undid it: [1] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: It still says "According to the observation of a journalist" on my screen. It also says, "members of the alt-right and other on the far-right." Misleading information and a typo. 90.208.134.158 (talk)

Oh, thanks—I missed the changes made further down. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Gorilla Warfare. You seem to be conversing normally here with a user who was recently blocked, but is now back for some unknown reason calling me a "racist". You know that's a problem, right? A couple of sloppy no-name journalists doing it is one thing, but Wikipedia is supposed to be above all that.

This person is presently in massive violation of various Wikipedia policies. To see what I'm talking about, visit Talk:Simulation Hypothesis, where he appears as "Gary 90.208.134.158", and examine his posts. Here are a few examples:

"...your racist and conspiratorial social media rantings" (pretty much what we see right here)

"Try as you might to weasel your way out of this, you won't succeed. All your talk of "crushing" those who debate you is just that – talk. You have never crushed anyone in a debate, and that certainly isn't going to change while I am your opponent. Unlike you, I don't cower away in an echo chamber ... I am used to debating people, which is why mopping the floor with you today has been so easy for me." [In other words, "Gary" sees the talk page of the Wikipedia article "Simulation hypothesis" as his own personalized "debate" forum to be used for "mopping the floor with" me. (I'm afraid he didn't quite succeed.)]

"Try again, champ. I am sure you will "crush me like a bug" eventually. Don't lose hope!" [Another highly personalized ejaculation from "Gary", demonstrating that he's using Wikipedia as his own personal debate forum. If you think that this is appropriate, please consult WP:TPO and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.]

Now have a look at the comments of "Nigerian chess player", who still doesn't seem to have been so much as warned. Is this some kind of joke?

With all due respect, I'm getting tired of being chased around and trolled here. I don't have time for it. So if you wouldn't mind, can something be done about it? Thanks. Chris Langan (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Langan: As I have been an active editor of this page, I am staying out of any administrative actions against users who are editing it (per policy). I would recommend posting any concerns you have at WP:ANI or, given the history of this page, WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Langan: I have blocked Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs) for a short period and have issued a warning at User talk:Nigerian chess player#Blocked and User talk:90.208.134.158. If there are further problems, much longer blocks will occur. Please do not engage with the arguments shown at Talk:Simulation hypothesis. By all means propose an edit but further discussion should be focused on the merits of that proposal. Do not respond to the kinds of comments raised at that talk because doing so could have no possible benefit for the encyclopedia. Instead, feel free to notify me (post {{ping|Johnuniq}} at a talk page, or post a link to the discussion in a new section at my talk). Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]