26.11.2025 18:52
👍 4
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Let me save you all some time & energy.
3I/ATLAS is almost certainly a comet. A really cool interstellar comet.
All “anomalies” are well within window of normal behavior. Just platformed by the wishful thinking or misinformed.
That’s the *actual* data and evidence.
No, but he had it all in one nice package and in one place for easy consumption. If I can’t get a hold of it, I’ll have to do it myself…
Oh well great. It seems that user just deleted his username in the last few weeks. 🙄
This is going to be all of a sudden much bigger hassle. Let me see if wayback machine has it.
“We have told you?” I don’t know who you were walking to but it wasn’t me.
You’re conflating interactions w/ others with me, and getting increasingly not so nice about it. I’ve been nothing but respectful.
That thread wasn’t rambling. It was 100% specific in what exact rules were being skirted.
You asked about the UFO world. I’m sharing with you what I have seen.
MY criticism is with what we have already had a long back and forth about. Shall I link it to you again as a reminder? All your Qs are answered there.
Can you answer mine please? It’s a yes or no? 🤷🏻♂️
What? If you said they weren’t associated w/ GSoW and that you didn’t train them, why would I think you’re lying?
Everyone seems to think they are. I’m asking for clarity’s sake. I didn’t realize this wouldn’t be an easy yes or no…
The thread I pointed to has that very issue. Citing rules while making edits that break the same rules. Vet editors have more power to approve/reject. Again, if MrOllie is not associated with GSoW then this is besides the point.
I’ve asked twice now. This is the 3rd.
Are they?
I can’t speak for others, but the criticism I have seen online is that the training from GSoW has led to a form of activism on Wikipedia that skirts Wikipedia’s own policies in favor of a personal bias of those approving/rejecting and doing the editing.
Our prior convos dived into it. And I’m happy to elaborate further, but it’s all irrelevant if the editor MrOllie isn’t associated with GSoW.
Are they?
My specific criticisms were leveled at them, and I was (wrongly?) led to assume they were with GSoW.
It’s April 1st.
You read something crazy?
Remember…
It’s April 1st.
Hey Susan! So sorry for the delay on this. Life has been very busy. So to confirm, the editor from that thread, MrOllie, is not associated with GSoW?
😂😂
Star Wars meme
MAGAs now justifying the unsafe dissemination of classified info after losing their minds over Dem mishandling of classified info just shows what we already know:
It’s not about the classified info. It’s a team sport, and they defend their side and attack the other. At any cost.
SecDef:
We have 100% OpSec. No leaks!
The Editor-In-Chief of @TheAtlantic in the corner, accidentally invited:
👁️👄👁️
I have never yelled “GOOOOO” more in my life
( #severance season finale spoilers )
Hi Susan! My day ended up keeping me busy until late last night, but I plan on doing the searching needed to give you a thorough answer before I start my day job later today.
In the interim, take a peek at that thread by TheCholla I sent over.
Thanks!
And unfortunately it is clear that the user in this case is very biased and not sticking to the facts.
Essentially: Rules for thee but not for me
The same reasons edits are getting dismissed should apply to other edits made by these users, but the fact that they are power users and essentially have say over what gets approved on the page, they are lax on applying the same standards to themselves.
They are people like myself. There are scientists in my family.
But training and working within the framework required to publish in that work through grad school, doctorate, and post-doc isn’t to be dismissed.
Just sent an example before seeing this. IIRC most of them are not your edits. I’ll have to look deeper and see.
Nevermind, found an example faster than I thought. Although sharing someone else’s thread as it is more in-depth.
Sorry for the link to Twitter, but it’s fairly long.
x.com/the_cholla/s...
You don’t. It was an assumption on my end. But it did make me realize this org isn’t a bunch of scientists, but more made up of people like myself.
It’s been a while since I dived into it. It was edits that were UAP-related. I have not looked at edits on other topics.
I’ll look back and try to find it and come back to share. It may be a bit as I have to do some work first.
Watch this space! 🙂
Let me also say for the record though that I’ve been disgusted with some of the tweets I’ve seen on there re: you or your org, and have done my best to call them out when I see them.
clear instances of abusing the editing system within Wikipedia that goes against not only the spirit of the site, but its policies.
As a skeptic myself, seeing behavior like that bums me out, as that is activism, not objectivity.
It’s motivations that are more akin to a believer.
This is coming from an actor, so I am in no way saying there is an anything wrong with being a photographer.
Just that for all this time, I thought the person heading this skeptical effort had a background in academia.
I’m all for the stated mission of the Guerilla Skeptics, but have seen
Hey Sue! Thanks for reaching out. Absolutely!
and now… the #snl cast member who has no friends 🥲
#snl50
