User talk:We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because this username is misleading in nature.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs)

Misleading? This is a well known quotation from the philologist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Look it up. We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit long, but I can't see any problem with this name: it's just difficult to know what to call you for short. Welcome to Wikipedia, er, Knower! -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was a very impulsive choice. This is the full quote which popped to my mind: 'You will have gathered what I am getting at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine.'

In any event I have added a small bit to 'Replication crisis' but if anyone else has sources on this I am hunting some down now because this is a major event that doesn't seem to be covered on Wikipedia yet and is of scientific importance and notability to deserve such coverage. I will try to find some appropriate references as soon as possible to over this controvers and the recently revealed difficulties. no axe to grind and this is not my own discipline but this is certainly notable and interesting and being given wide discussion on psychology blogs and journals and elsewhere.(if you really prefer me to chan\ge my name I don't really care.) We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the user name has the potential to be misleading because in edit summaries it could imply that other users share a philosophy of "We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians", as in "we" all feel this way (other Wikipedians). Perhaps I read into it too much. I wasn't aware that this is a quote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ll maybe it can be changed if it turns out to be problematic. It was just an off the cuff choice. Anyway, I don't tell have time to write something yet, but I think it might be interesting To do so and someone should be added significantly to replication crisis from these references and recent events: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/03/psychology_study_that_induced_the_reproducibility_crisis_was_wrong.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/science/psychology-replication-reproducibility-project.html?_r=0 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303145733.htm http://www.nature.com/news/psychology-s-reproducibility-problem-is-exaggerated-say-psychologists-1.19498 http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/psychologys-replication-crisis-cant-be-wished-away/472272/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/03/errors-riddled-2015-study-showing-replication-crisis-in-psychology-research-scientists-say/ http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/is-psychologys-replication-crisis-really-overblown.html

There are interesting views both ways over how significant this is, but would be interesting to expand the article from this material maybe it is better to let events pla out longer before writing something, thigh?.We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the typos, the last post was on my phone.We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replication crisis

Check out the source search options below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks! Maybe I will try to source somethings and expand this article later this week based on recent coverage. We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted you because your edit added information that was unsourced, which is considered original research. This goes against Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and could as well lead to its own replication crisis :). Additionally. the "detail" you added just repeats the next paragraph and the p-hacking is noted later on—not to mention "half" is a claim that needs a citation and the article explicitly notes: "Replication failures are not unique to psychology and are found in all fields of science." While the lead is supposed to summarize the body, it should do so in a representative way. Lastly I also agree that your username is quite strange and makes it seem like you have something against religion and philosophy. (I know you don't, but that's the impression it gives). Please let me know if you need any clarification for any of this. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I hear you. Half refers to the recent replication effort but I didn't link to the s\u\rce. there have been significant new developments recently within the last month and I will try to write something soon which is sourced. I understand your decision since I didn't link an\thing to verify

I have in mind these recent papers: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.3 |http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149794 (popular coverage; http://www.wired.com/2016/03/psychology-crisis-whether-crisis/ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/psychologys-replication-crisis-sparks-new-debate) but mane it's better\ t wait a few months to add aying to an encyclopedia because who knows right now but it's definite notable. this is not my field so I don't have a dog in this but it's caught my interest We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those do seem to be good sources to integrate. And yeah waiting for the dust to settle is another option to consider, though I don't know how fast the matter is progressing. Take your time and familiarize yourself with our policies, and don't hesitate to ask for any help. Opencooper (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, We knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. If you need assistance, check out the Getting Help section below or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please always fill in the edit summary field to describe your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Cordially, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia's five pillars • A tutorial • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments • Help desk • Teahouse • Help directory Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources • Topic notability What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • List of guidelines • Three-revert rule • Copyrights Image use policy • Policy for non-free content • Deletion policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Conflict of interest • Sock puppetry

Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation The perfect article • Peer review • Featured content
The community
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette Build consensus • Resolve disputes • No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump • Signpost • IRC channels
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages • Portals Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts Awards that registered contributors can achieve and award

April 2016

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, especially if it involves living persons. Also, don't restore material from sock puppets that has been removed by other editors. - Mr X 03:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. - Mr X 03:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What defamatory content? Those comparisons have sources. Can you be more explicit? I don't see anything defamatory about the claim that Trump has been often likened to Hitler. Can we not report on something that has been in major media outlets?

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]