User talk:Peter1c

More information WikiLGBT is on Twitter! ...

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Peter1c! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

Close

RachelWex 00:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RX needs you! Wikipedia's Resource Exchange is looking for someone with access to the University of Chicago library who would be willing and able to help with this request. Fulfilling a request like this usually entails going to the library and scanning the table of contents and index of the book, emailing them to the requester, then potentially going back at a later date to scan a modest number of pages identified by the requester based on the TOC and index (usually no more than 20 pages, or whatever seems appropriate under fair use).

If you can help, please coordinate with Antemister in their request thread: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_38#University of Chicago. Thanks, --Worldbruce (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Natan de Breslov. Since you had some involvement with the Natan de Breslov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flight from the world. Since you had some involvement with the Flight from the world redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Victor history. Since you had some involvement with the Victor history redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, M.Bitton. With all due respect, the idea that the phrase should be associated with an episode of a television drama, and not with the foundational text of Western civilization from which the phrase originates, is symptomatic of the profound ignorance and philistinism of the present age. I acquiesce to your philistinism and allow your decision to stand. ~ Peter1c (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the article's history. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peter1c, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Council on Spiritual Practices, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices (2nd nomination).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Klbrain. Thanks for your message. I support the deletion. I don't know whether this organization is still in existence. There is a research group at the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics with the same name, possibly related, but I'm not sure. In any case, it would make more sense to have an article on the Center rather than this subdivision. Sorry I haven't been up to speed on this. Please feel free to delete the article. Best wishes, Peter1c (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Peter, You made a strong statement in March on the talk page, which spurred a considerable amount of discussion. I'm surprised you haven't taken part. Was your comment just venting? What was your objective in making that comment? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, after you're done with licking the current Nigerien government's boots, would you care to add how they're importing Russian mercenaries to exterminate and genocide the Tuareg? Or I guess it's all part of liberation and stuff... You see, it's not a matter of partisanship, it's a matter of not falling into hypocrisy. 46.6.146.223 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not add slurs, images, symbols, or other content meant to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors. Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted under criteria G10. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Moxy🍁 00:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Moxy I am calling you out for racist content. When you accuse me of racism, this is called Projection. Is this a tactic you are using to remove Black editors and their allies from the site so you can retain the racist content? ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world - in my 20 plus years here I have seen a few people loss their academic position due to comments here on Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 14:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a helpful article. So just to understand, you are interpreting calling out editors for racism as speech intended "to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors". It seems like calling out racism shares the aspect of making people uncomfortable, so it could be related to that. If you are the one making the claim that my speech, which is intended to combat racism, falls into the category of racist speech, can you substantiate this claim? As it is, I admit I am mystified by your response. Can you explain how policy was applied in this case and produced the warning so I can avoid it in the future? Thank you. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

How do you know who is what - I spend my time writing articles like Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples and Residential school denialism - so likie many others your commenst seem like uneducated replies. What you need to do is make suggestions to change the article not about who you belive is writing shit. That said the article does mention and link to the main article on slavery, Indigenous genocide, Civil rights movement etc....

So how to move forward - need to suggest a change

{{textdiff|This sounds colonial|Indigenous point of view}} →

−

This sounds colonial

+

Indigenous point of view

Moxy🍁 14:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy, I was a little surprised to find this edit from an editor who has been around so long. Seems like blatant POV editing / righting great wrongs, with the edit summary essentially admitting that they couldn't care less about community consensus. Not sure if this should be escalated or if they will sincerely back down. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Moxy. Thank you for explaining this. Thanks also for the links to your articles they will definitely be helpful to me. I understand how my approach can be perceived as ignorant and I agree the approach you propose is better. I need to take account of the difficulty of maintaining Wikipedia articles. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I am chiming in here rather than in the discussion on that Talk page because, although my gut feeling is that you are correct, I am not a resident of the US, and I am not prepared to put in the research needed to add any academic rigour to my feelings. However, while putting together, for a different project, a rough list of all lands the US had attacked in 250 years (starting with pushing the Cherokee out of their homeland in 1776, before the US was even internationally recognised) I did think, as I picked the incidents up from 'pedia lists, to note down the names of people who appeared to have been displaced from lands in North America and Liberia where the white men settled. Having got as far as I had time to do on that list, leaving it very imperfect, I thought to drop the list back into Wikipedia in case it was of use to anyone, and you might just be that person. I stress the need to read the caveats at the top before using it. You can find it, until someone archives the page, at Talk:Lists of wars involving the United States#Lands the US has invaded, bombed, or attacked militarily, listed by date of first attack. You will note that it is already out of date by one war. As I have freely commented, due to the work which would be needed to bring up to academic standard, on a subject in which I am a total novice and don't have the time to learn, and since it does not add any information to 'pedia, but merely rearranges it, I am not convinced it is any use, but if you were intending to look into that subject, it might just be a starter for you.

It certainly hints at an attitude little different from the present regime's white male US exceptionalism, going back 250 years, and that, in general terms, was what I was looking at, starting by considering actions such as Truman's extraction of all Nazi officers who were engineers or scientists in 1945, ignoring war crimes for which they should have been tried, and probably executed, because the slaves, et al whose deaths they had caused were not US citizens, and they wanted to ensure that the USSR could not extract them -- the US must develop nuclear ICBMs, jet aircraft, etc and eventually get to the moon, before the Russians, and Wernher von Brown and his associates did them proud -- in fact at least superficially, it is arguable that the only reason the US came to Europe was for that purpose -- AFAICS, the first time Roosevelt publicly stated that the US would join (and indeed prioritise) the European war was a fortnight after evidence started to emerge that Stalin had Hitler's troops on the run. Before then, excluding Lend-Lease, which was a commercial deal made in heaven for the US economy, all efforts seemed to be to help the Nazis, eg Robert H Goddard appears to have gifted his whole knowledge of missile building to the Nazis, whereas the Allies had to pay, at least on credit, for materiel.

As another example, the Manhattan Project was kick-started by the research of émigré Jewish scientists working in the UK and their work, along with the total known world stocks of uranium, were provided by the UK and Canada on condition that it was a joint project, but once the US had the uranium and UK scientists had nursed the US scientists through the calculations required, the US shut the UK and Canada out of the project on the basis that our companies might compete with US companies in the new atomic field -- the one we had invented! And more recently, in 2019 there was a UK General Election where a socialist leader was expected to win, but in a last-minute change, he lost badly -- there is now evidence that Russia interfered with the election, and circumstantial evidence -- from his team's own mouths, that they did so at the behest of Trump. So having found that both US parties were involved in the last 85 years, I sought to trace that back to see if there was ever a time before white male US exceptionalism, and on a first check, the country appears to have been rotten from the start. Hoover's tariffing the world, Wilson's cynical arrival where US troops messed about until the final 2 months of WWI, when they were no longer needed, and so on all the way back to 1776. But, I do not expect to have time to progress that research any further, so as I say, I pass on what little I have. Enginear (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)