User talk:Psychologist Guy

Hi, I just came across this article. I expanded the section on soy and men's health. If you happen to come across current meta studies, you may want to add them to the article. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know of a good review on soy. Simon Hill recently mentioned it, I will try and find it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:meat

Thought you might want to weigh in on that. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I do not believe it is at the stage of a good article yet. I think it needs more work but I am busy with many other articles, it's not something I am able to put much time into. There is a mistake on the article, it says "unprocessed red meat has a smaller increase or no risk" in regard to coronary heart disease. The source listed is a review from 2012, this is outdated. We have more modern reviews than this, like these [1], [2], [3]. Both processed and unprocessed red meat increase CVD risk. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Psychologist Guy!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dada Bhagwan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tea critics has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting someone's started a thread about you at ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User: Psychologist Guy. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has just been expanded and updated with new reliable sources, images, and media. As one of its most involved editors, your contribution would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PG,

if I'd file a deletion request on this redirect to enable it as redlink - would it go through?

Kind regards, Tadarrius Bean (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The Michael R. Eades Wikipedia article does not exist. It's never been created as a biography. It only exists as a redirect to Protein Power. There is no point in linking to the Michael R. Eades article on the Protein Power article because it just redirects on itself. I find it unlikely a Wikipedia article for Michael R. Eades will be created, there are not enough stand alone references to establish a biography. However, if the article is created one day, then yes it can be linked to. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to file a deletion request on the Michael R. Eades redirect since he is not treated sufficiently at Protein Power. May you please be so kind to tell me the steps necessary?--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is enough information about the author to create their own article, I'd first suggest working through the steps on Your-First-Article before worrying about deleting the redirect. Q ^{T C} 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OverlordQ: Thanks, but I've never wanted to write an article about Mr. Eades. I'm a foreigner; in my language we have less redirects and more redlinks.--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the same mistake with Gordon Hempton. Shall I file a Template:Db?--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would not qualify for that template (which is for speedy deletion and cannot be used for redirects). The place to go would be WP:RFD. But I do not think the redirect will be deleted, because readers who come here looking for that person will need to end up at the diet page, because that's the only place where we have information about him (until such time as a biography page is created, which would be done by simply editing the existing redirect page so that it's an article and no longer a redirect). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Is there any procedural way to get back a redlink if I think this would be more honest to the reader?--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The only procedural process would be to request deletion at WP:RFD. There, you would be making a request, that will be discussed by other editors. You can try that if you want. But my experience is that the likely outcome would be to keep it as a redirect to the Protein Power page. (Here at the English Wikipedia, we have WP:Redirects are cheap, and as long as the redirect takes our readers to where they will find the information, it's likely that the redirect will be kept.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been pointed to an article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas during a content dispute - it was a piece by John Turri trying to put forward that bias between political ideologies was more significant in the United States than racism. And I was like, hold up, this is the worst philosophical writing I've ever read! Just thoroughly bad scolasticism. Turri cited the same author multiple times as separate citations and then used those multiple citations (to one guy) to suggest something as established within the field. He badly paraphrased other authors, he made vast leaps in reasoning. I mean I read a business school journal about anthropocentric bias and AI "art" that week and Turri's paper still managed to be the worst paper I'd read all week. Then I found out about the anonymous zoophilia article and was like, "well this is basically the pseudo-academic equivalent to people freaking out that kids are 'identifying as cats' and going pee in a litter box." And then I read up on the founders and they were all EA people and, frankly, contemporary philosophy is pretty hostile even to regular utilitarians, let alone the weird eugenicist racist offspring of utilitarianism. So, yeah, based on those I thought I should put up a word of caution. But I felt I'd already wasted enough of my life on that rag so I did kind of half-ass it.

Anyway, appreciate you filling in some blanks there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have pretty much nailed it. The Journal of Controversial Ideas is a basically a cesspit project of some radical fringe utilitarians. In recent years there has been a strong link between some of these fringe academics and eugenics and far-right content. The journal was founded because several of these utilitarians were fed up with certain academics being de-platformed or fired. The real driving force for the journal was the firing of far-right Noah Carl.

Peter Singer has always been on the fringe and has invoked all sorts of controversies with odd thought experiments about rape. I have not looked into John Turri before but I see he is also a utilitarian. There is an interesting article here from a utilitarian philosopher who admits that most of the modern utilitarians are just shit-stirring with stupid thought experiments to be controversial [4]. The Journal of Controversial Ideas has a very weak editorial board, they are not fact checking the papers they publish.

As I stated in a recent post, we know the journal is suspect because they are publishing anonymous papers supportive of bestiality and another written by a pedophile. Peter Singer is obsessed with defending "academic freedom", well this is the outcome and it isn't good. I believe a lot of what they are publishing is dangerous misinformation.

The Wikipedia article should be expanded with other sources if any come to light. It's too supportive of the journal and doesn't reflect what most academics really think about it. I will keep a watch out and see if the journal is added to any other articles [5] Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eyes open for critical RSes. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSCOMMENTS - Please do not delete others' comments on the basis of being "off topic". See Wikipedia:TALKOFFTOPIC. Your opinion of what is off topic may differ from what others think is topic, "so be sure to err on the side of caution". 69.249.103.131 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:PA. Personal attacks will be removed. Talk about the article not specific editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Veganism and Vegetarianism Barnstar
		Babysharkboss2 was here!! Hold me like a Grudge 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]